# Continental X-King Racesport



## Steve_James (Apr 16, 2008)

Got my 1st set of the new X-Kings yetserday. These are the new Racesport versions which are supposedly Supersonic (and black chilli) but with just s atouch more rubber on the sidewalls and a tighter bead to help setup tubeless.

Got to say that they mounted up an absolute treat on my STANS Podium rims. They were easier than Supersonics by a long was. The slightly tighter bead makes it easier to get the initial bit of air into and they have held air overinghy with 2 cups of stans and just a quick shake.

I think these, along with the new mountain kings are going to be awesome treads...

Still love the Race Kings for the dry mind


----------



## ACMI (Dec 16, 2009)

May I ask where you got them? Price?

- Thanks!


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

I was already excited about these tires before the introduction of the Racesport version, now I'm absolutely giddy. Just hope it's not one of those things where my expectations are too high to ever be met.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Are the 2.2 the same size as the Race king 2.2 or have they done the usual Conti strange thing with sizes again?


----------



## cc mtb (May 1, 2006)

I'm curious to know what the tread/casing width measurements are as well.


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=644095

From the looks of this thread it looks like you will need the 2.4 for the volume of a 2.2 RK.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Bike24.com have the racesport 2.2 in stock


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

My understanding is that the RaceSport version have the UST-like bead? What about the Protection version?


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

I've also found the 2.2 on the German Ebay. No 2.4 yet. Patiently waiting...


----------



## Steve_James (Apr 16, 2008)

Hey guys,

The 2.2" is narrower than the 2.2" Race King. I think you would go for the 2.4" X-King to have the same volume.

That said, volume of the 2.2" X-King is not bad at all and I'd be happy using one on the front with a Race King out back if it was a little wet for instance. I think the 2.2" X-King is around the same at the tread edges as the Race King is on the sidewalls.

I will measure them later and post......

Oh, I got them from Starbike in germany but they are showing out of stock again already. It was only the 2.2" Racesport that came in so I guess Conti are getting this one out first as they expect it to be the most popular and is probably used as OE on some 2011 bikes.

I say to be prefect I would use Race King 2.2" F&R in the dry, then go X-King 2.4" up front if you needed extra bite. Then if it got a little more wet I would use 2.2" X-King front and rear.

Regardless of conditions, I'll give them a run this weekend and report..


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Even before they're available at all, I'm already being torn between the racesport and the protection versions... unsure what to get when they come in stock. If it was a choice between, say, protection and supersonic, I'd definitely get the protection, but the racesport looks very attractive as well and I'm not sure whether i'll really need that extra layer of protection and if it's worth sacrificing 140g of weight for two wheels, because I'm gonna use them with sealant inside.
Anyway, it's better to have to choose from two perfectly good options (both are BC!) than to have no choice .


----------



## Trevorken (Jul 2, 2007)

How wide is the 2.2 compared to a Schwalbe racing ralph 2.25?
I'm still not certain which to choose:2.2 or 2.4.
The 2.2 is 200 gram lighter for a set :???:


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

The RaRa 2.25 is bigger than the XK 2.2, which looks a little bit too small. I would suggest to run it, if your body weight is low, with very low pressure, perhaps just 20 psi to feel a little bit of comfort. It´s fast. As Steve has mentioned above the XK is performing better in wet conditions like the RaRa. 
To be honest I like the more volumed tires more. 
The main prob is that the tire weight is in most cases I heard not the magic 460gr. Perhaps the production nneds more time to be accurate.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

shapirus said:


> Even before they're available at all, I'm already being torn between the racesport and the protection versions... unsure what to get when they come in stock. If it was a choice between, say, protection and supersonic, I'd definitely get the protection, but the racesport looks very attractive as well and I'm not sure whether i'll really need that extra layer of protection and if it's worth sacrificing 140g of weight for two wheels, because I'm gonna use them with sealant inside.
> Anyway, it's better to have to choose from two perfectly good options (both are BC!) than to have no choice .


This is what I will do:

Step1 order the Racesport
Step 2 cut the sidewall in the middle of an important race
Step 3 order the Pro Tection


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Holding out for the Protection 2.4 in the rear of the HT for all year useage looks promising, the Protections extra layer of rubber is supposed to slow down the rebound so a better damped rear end sounds great on the HT.

Hoping the XK2.4 will have more volume than the RK2.2, not much and expect the XK2.2 to be down a fraction if so that'll fit better in the FS in the rear


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Monitoring Bike24.com thanks


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

So, there's more to it than just reinforced sidewalls. The Racesport version comes with a UST-compatible bead whereas Protection comes with regular bead.

pictures from https://www.bikerumor.com/2010/10/0...e-and-commuter-tires-casings-from-continental



















So, probably, considering this, I'll be ordering Racesport versions for my ZTR Flow rims (tubeless with Stan's) and see how they'll be doing.

p.s. I have never cut (or nearly cut) the sidewall of my old RK Protection on the trail, but, despite being protected, it has gotten a cut from some broken glass fragment while I was riding home one day. So _maybe_ I don't need this protection layer anyway... but we'll see


----------



## CAFAN (Jan 19, 2010)

Hi,

I've got a queation and I could'n find the answer on the internet. 
Can you fit the Racesport version (Tubeless Ready) tubeless on normal rims (American classic 350 26 from 2008)??

or do i just have to put some sealant in it?

thank you very much
Patrick


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

CAFAN said:


> I've got a queation and I could'n find the answer on the internet.
> Can you fit the Racesport version (Tubeless Ready) tubeless on normal rims (American classic 350 26 from 2008)??


With an inner tube, yes, they will work, if the description on the picture above is true.
Without a tube (tubeless ghetto or kit conversion), nobody will tell you until someone tries this exact combination. Most likely they will work, but it's also possible that they will not.
On a UST rim, they should work well, but probably will still need some sealant (such a light weight doesn't cannot come for free).



CAFAN said:


> or do i just have to put some sealant in it?


There's more to non-UST tubeless conversion than just using sealant.


----------



## Steve_James (Apr 16, 2008)

you will still have touse sealant. The racesport is not UST airtight, it just has a UST style bead to make it easier to mount. Mine still had a few tiny leaks that the sealant had to plug but they are WAY better than the old supersonics.

Used them last weekend in a race that started damp, and ended like a swamp. They were awesome all the way.


----------



## CAFAN (Jan 19, 2010)

I know how to make regular type tire tube tubeless (i have now RK SS on de AM classic) but I bought the XK Racesport with the idea they fitted on my rims. 

I think I just have to try it out


@Steve_James
You fitted you're tyres not on a UST or Tubeless ready rim (I think) So it would maybe work i gues


----------



## jbsteven (Aug 12, 2009)

anyone found a US dealer with these yet?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Role on getting my hands on the Protections damping from the tyre itself, ideal.


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Outstanding tire. I have tested them a while and used them during my last race. Superfast, great grip, confidence inspiring. Run them with low pressure and the volume is big enough to feel some comfort. As I think now better than the Race Kings. During a race with mixed conditions (dry, hard, mud, whatever) you might get into trouble with the Race Kings in the mud, with the XK not.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I think summer useage RK 2.2 on the rear XK2.4 front is my likely choice, Winter useage XK2.4 rear and back to RQ 2.4 front most likely.

I just hope the 2.4's measure up nicely, ie bigger than a RK2.2 volume wise. RQ 2.4 level would likely be to much.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

My X-King 2.4's Racesport should come in any day now. I found them in stock :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve_James (Apr 16, 2008)

CAFAN said:


> I know how to make regular type tire tube tubeless (i have now RK SS on de AM classic) but I bought the XK Racesport with the idea they fitted on my rims.
> 
> I think I just have to try it out
> 
> ...


yes for sure - I'm using them on STANS Podium MMX rims.

As the post above from Mr.SJ, these tyres are really good! I have now used them in horrid sloppy mud and they faired very well indeed. I used them next at a race where it started just a little wet and muddy but the line dried out fairly quick. There were lots of roots etc as well.

At this race I would have usually opted for the RK 2.2 but I felt this tyre helped me when it was more slippery, and really did not cost me anything when it was fully dry. For me, the best thing is just how predictable they are when on the edge. Really damn good, very impressed.


----------



## xc71 (Dec 24, 2008)

Does anyone have actual weights on the X-King Racesport 2.2 non protection version.


----------



## Trevorken (Jul 2, 2007)

madskatingcow said:


> My X-King 2.4's Racesport should come in any day now. I found them in stock :thumbsup:


And where would that be?


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

I've measured the width of the X-King 2.4 Racesport, folded open on the table : exactly a whopping 15cm (Racing Ralph 2.25 measures 14.5cm). Weight on my digital scale : 580g ... 

Can anybody measure the exact width of the X-King 2.2 folded open on the table? That way I can have an impression on the volume of the 2.2 (it should weigh 100g less).


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

starbike.com has them listed as in stock (just ordered a pair myself)


----------



## Sid Nitzerglobin (Sep 17, 2010)

Would really like to try this tire out but, Jeebus! $75 a piece for a 2.2 before shipping?!?! 

I guess maybe I'll wait til next spring when there are some US distributors.


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

I am waiting for the protection versions of the X-King and Mountain King anyways. I came close to ripping open my RaceKing Supersonic I doubt the Racesports are much tougher.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Got a 2.2 race sport today and what a let down. Continental are at it again. Bizarre sizing.They are PUNY. They are the same bead to bead width as a mountain king 2.2[ 135mm] In comparison the race king 2.2 is 156mm. They also have narrower tread width than the mk 2.2 so overall they will be even smaller than a MK 2.2 which was the previous king of the Mr Puniverse. At a stretch with the mk2.2 you could say the tread was close to 2.2 wide. There's no way the tread on these are 2.2 wide. They'd better do a huge stretch under pressure overnight!
I will not even bother riding it. I might as well race with the brakes on my local trails with a tire with that small a volume. It looks like the 2.4 will be the same volume as a MK 2.4 as it is also 150mm bead to bead.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Well, it's not that big of a surprise, since Jeff K (who had been testing them) said long ago that you'll want to get a 2.4 X-King if you like the RK 2.2's volume.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Tire sizes are dissapointing - wish sizing was like Schwalbe's Racing Ralph 2.25's (14.5cm).

Weight of the 2.4 is even more a bummer : 580g, how's that to the approx. weight of 550g ? I weighed 5 X-King 2.4 Racesport tires, all varying between 576g and 582g.

Might ditch them and go for Schwalbe Rocket Ron's / Racing Ralph's Pacestar, which are also tubeless ready and weigh a lot less


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

gvs_nz said:


> I will not even bother riding it. Hopefully some mug might want it for mud plugging on the rear. I might as well race with the brakes on my local trails with a tire with that small a volume. It looks like the 2.4 will be the same volume as a MK 2.4 as it is also 150mm bead to bead.


oh come on, it can't be that bad.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

This is sounding BAD, but Conti RK's even cheap steel is bigger bead to bead then the folder and the UST so maybe others will be bigger ??

The 2.4 might still make a good tyre for the FS as 2.2 RK is tight, but I was hoping the 2.4 would make a good tyre for the rigid back and front.

Sucks, why can't they keep there sizing sensible, RQ 2.4 which are really 2.6's ( I like that ) , MK2.4's which are really 2.2's idiots.

MK V2 also likely still silly sized then, should be the SMK ( Smooth Mountain King )


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

To the people who already have the X-Kings :

My X-King Racesport 2.4 tires have the logo's printed in silver, giving them a 'prototype' look. Completely different compared to the image of the Racesport on their website.

What color is the logo like on yours?










Conti's site has the Racesport pictured like :


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

beanbag said:


> oh come on, it can't be that bad.


Have you never tried a Mk2.2.over rough terrain and tree roots? Might as well get off and walk.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

gvs_nz said:


> Have you never tried a Mk2.2.over rough terrain and tree roots? Might as well get off and walk.


Yes, I'm running one right now, in fact.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I tried a 2.4 MK on the rear and :-

1. On wet roads my bike just wanted to lie down and give up.
2. On wet dirt my bike just wanted to lie down and give up.
3. On dry ground my bike squirmed around and wanted to lie down and give up.
4. On dry road my bike squirmed around and wanted to lie down and give up.

The only use I could find was it magically sucked up all thorns in a 5mile radius, which is great for everyone else, but 3 punctures in 1 ride, after puncture free for over 2 years riding exactly the same place SUCKED!!


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

just ordered 3 XK 2.2's and 2 2.4's for me and my buds.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

beanbag said:


> Yes, I'm running one right now, in fact.


And have you ever tried a race king 2.2 or other high volume tire in comparison, especially trying to power up on a xc race hard tail. Everybody was eagerly awaiting their release expecting a Race king 2.2 with more tread. If they got it right, close to the perfect all round race tire.

There wouldn't be this much hype for a successor to the mk 2.2. You might be on your own there.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

shapirus said:


> Well, it's not that big of a surprise, since Jeff K (who had been testing them) said long ago that you'll want to get a 2.4 X-King if you like the RK 2.2's volume.


There not though, the 2.4 appears to only be similar to the smaller volume MK2.4. That's why I only got one to try. I was hoping if the 2.4 is the same volume as RK 2.2 then the 2.2 would be about same volume as Ra Ra 2.25. Shiggy was right when he said don't expect them to be any bigger than current MK sizes. He was spot on.

I measured up the 2.2 on a 28mm DT 5.1rim and it squeezes up to exactly 2.1across the tread.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

gvs_nz said:


> And have you ever tried a race king 2.2 or other high volume tire in comparison, especially trying to power up on a xc race hard tail.


What a coincidence, I happen to have a Race King 2.2 on my other wheelset.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

madskatingcow said:


> To the people who already have the X-Kings :
> 
> My X-King Racesport 2.4 tires have the logo's printed in silver, giving them a 'prototype' look. Completely different compared to the image of the Racesport on their website.
> 
> ...


Mine's full production gold and white.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

beanbag said:


> What a coincidence, I happen to have a Race King 2.2 on my other wheelset.


Well, you'll be happy with the Xking 2.2's then. You can do some timed runs with the RK 2.2 over the rough stuff and wonder why you didn't buy the 2.4's instead.


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Tire size:

Yes, I must confess, after installing the XK 2.2 RS I was rather disappointed considering the size, compared to the RK2.2. I thought, these never could work on hard trails with roots and stones. 

And when I heard, that Conti will correct all upcoming tires in 2.2 "down" to the size of the actual XK 2.2/ new MK II 2.2 as "real" 2.2-tires, because the high volumed Race King 2.2 was indeed designed with too much volume, being more a 2.4 (with a lot of people complaining about!), I did not get happier. 

But meanwhile I am happy with ´em and I will not change back to the RK. Volume is ok. You could run them with even with low pressure on rough trails. And, more important, as Steve James wrote above, there is no difference in speed compared to the RK on dry ground, and it´s better in the wet. Best race allrounder. Give them a try.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

What a confusion- 
Until now the common knowledge was that "width-wise": 

Race King 2.2 = Mountain King 2.4 = XKing 2.4
Race King 2.0 = Mountain King 2.2 = XKing 2.2

I still believe that nothing changed and if you need to mate a rear Race King , you need to buy a 2.4 X-King
It's that simple.


----------



## Mr.SJ (Mar 4, 2009)

Confusion - yes, unfortunately. 
But also the production of the RK 2.2 will change and they will have the size of the XK 2.2. 
I have read in a forum an email, that Conti is knowing about the confusion and that they have to endure at least one year with angry riders complaining about this and all the old RK´s have disappeared from the market. 
If I am right, from 2011 it will be:
RK 2.0 SS = XK 2.0 SS (if so) 
RK 2.2 = XK 2.2 = MK 2.2 and so on.

All those deep in love with the "old", high-volumed RK 2.2 (SS) should order them now.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

If they do knobble the RK2.2's which will be SAD, atleast we'll have the XK 2.4 which should be comparable Volume wise.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

My friend got hold of an X-King 2.2 Racesport

- measured the width bead to bead : 14,1 cm.
- weight 496g

I have the X-King 2.4 Racesport

- measured the width bead to bead : 16,0 cm.
- weight 576 - 586g (measured 5 tires)

Got today the new Racing Ralph 2.25 Pacestar 2011 

- measured the width bead to bead : 14,2 cm.
- weight 527g

I can post pictures with a ruler, this should help make things clear for everyone :thumbsup:


----------



## Trevorken (Jul 2, 2007)

madskatingcow said:


> My friend got hold of an X-King 2.2 Racesport
> 
> - measured the width bead to bead : 14,1 cm.
> - weight 496g
> ...


Any thought of how width the RR 2.25 of 2010 is?
I presume it is more than the new one.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Trevorken said:


> Any thought of how width the RR 2.25 of 2010 is?
> I presume it is more than the new one.


Rocket Ron or Racing Ralph 2010? Both are equal, 14,2cm (at least the ones I have here at home)


----------



## Trevorken (Jul 2, 2007)

I meant the Racing Ralph. So the XKing 2.2 is not that small.


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

And I thought it was common knowledge that Continental measures their tires differently. Apparently not because people still come here complaining about tire size.

So again Conti tires are measured in width at their widest point. The widest point on the MK and XK being the tread and the widest point on the RK the sidewall. Yes it sucks but it is something you have to deal with.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

On that bike24.com website the RK is listed as having a racesport version. But the conti website doesn't list a racesport RK. Anyone know if a racesport RK is coming out? That would be pretty great since the supersonics are a pain to mount tubeless.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Ansible said:


> On that bike24.com website the RK is listed as having a racesport version. But the conti website doesn't list a racesport RK. Anyone know if a racesport RK is coming out? That would be pretty great since the supersonics are a pain to mount tubeless.


Yes, the conti online catalog lists the RK with a racesport version avaliable


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

tussery said:


> And I thought it was common knowledge that Continental measures their tires differently. Apparently not because people still come here complaining about tire size.
> 
> So again Conti tires are measured in width at their widest point. The widest point on the MK and XK being the tread and the widest point on the RK the sidewall. Yes it sucks but it is something you have to deal with.


No ones complaining about anything. I bought one to try to clarify things and can easily flick it off for what I paid for it. I do that with many tires. 
Just informing everybody to expect a change and go for the 2.4 if you want the bigger volume tire. Saves them money and disappointment. That's what forums are for, sharing info.

Most know how most mfg, not just conti, measure their tires. Conti were moving towards higher volume tires. What's frustrating, is now they are retrenching?

But the xking 2.2 across it's widest point is 2.1". Unlike the MK 2.2 and RK 2.2 which was 2.2". It may stretch to a 2.2 width set up tubeless over time. Still doesn't have the height and volume.
The 2.4 may never stretch to a 2.4 across it's width. It is same volume as current 2.4 mk which has smaller volume than current RK 2,2. Which measures 2.2 across it's widest part. They would come off a different mould so may be wide rather than tall like the RK 2,2?

I was suspicious that RK will come down in size this year because latest trst in German bike magazine shows RK2.2 and XK 2.2 as same width. That meant either xk was same size as old RK or RK was coming down in size to old MK size.

It's unfortunate they may be downsizing because RK 2.2 gained it's current following[as shown by huge mtbr thread] because of it's unique ride quality and grippiness in part due to it's large volume.

I suspect there playing the weight numbers game and tires for the majority of xc riders are sold by weight stats. With TLR and extra knobs on xk it would have been over weight for those that think weight is the b all and end all. For those who want more volume and cush there is the 2.4, while not as big as current RK, will still be fine.

As far as volume goes, it looks like XK2.2 = MK 2.2 < Ra Ra 2.25 and XK 2.4 = MK 2.4 < RK2.2


----------



## peehaw (May 27, 2010)

Maybe I'm cheap but spending all that money on a tire before shipping sounds a little rediculous. I run race kings front and rear and like Steven I too wanted to find something to run when its not dry. I think what you guys should do is wait for this tire to hit the states so you can check it out in person and save your self spending $$$$ loads on tires. I think if you are looking for something comparable to the x-king this is your tire http://www.michelinbicycle.com/michelinbicycle/index.cfm?event=wildracer.view and you can get it for $29.00 online. Michelin makes good stuff. Hope this helps you hypesters save some money on a tire that at this stage in the game is more hype than its worth:thumbsup: .

29X2.10 (52-622) / tube type / 60 TPI / 700g / 29-58 PSI / black
Michelin Advanced Technology for tubeless tires


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

peehaw said:


> Maybe I'm cheap but spending all that money on a tire before shipping sounds a little rediculous. I run race kings front and rear and like Steven I too wanted to find something to run when its not dry. I think what you guys should do is wait for this tire to hit the states so you can check it out in person and save your self spending $$$$ loads on tires. I think if you are looking for something comparable to the x-king this is your tire http://www.michelinbicycle.com/michelinbicycle/index.cfm?event=wildracer.view and you can get it for $29.00 online. Michelin makes good stuff. Hope this helps you hypesters save some money on a tire that at this stage in the game is more hype than its worth:thumbsup: .
> 
> 29X2.10 (52-622) / tube type / 60 TPI / 700g / 29-58 PSI / black
> Michelin Advanced Technology for tubeless tires


I've got a pair of those and trust me they are in the same boat as the race king (quite frankly the race king is the better of the two.) The rubber in those michelin tires is nothing magical either. Which is exactly why people are spending huge amounts of money on Continental tires is the Black Chili rubber. Now those tires against a made in taiwan race king and x-king yeah they are going to be comparable because they are probably all made in the same factory.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

i ordered 5 x-kings from starbike and they came to around $46 shipped. Not bad as long as you're buying in bulk for you and your friends.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

peehaw said:


> Maybe I'm cheap but spending all that money on a tire before shipping sounds a little rediculous. I run race kings front and rear and like Steven I too wanted to find something to run when its not dry. I think what you guys should do is wait for this tire to hit the states so you can check it out in person and save your self spending $$$$ loads on tires. I think if you are looking for something comparable to the x-king this is your tire http://www.michelinbicycle.com/michelinbicycle/index.cfm?event=wildracer.view and you can get it for $29.00 online. Michelin makes good stuff. Hope this helps you hypesters save some money on a tire that at this stage in the game is more hype than its worth:thumbsup: .
> 
> 29X2.10 (52-622) / tube type / 60 TPI / 700g / 29-58 PSI / black
> Michelin Advanced Technology for tubeless tires


I run Michelins on a couple of bikes as well. Very good tires for the price.Not Wild Racer [ dry 2's] because they clog in anything soft. 2010 Racer's are cheap because they have a complete new tread pattern different to the old Dry pattern for 2011 and look much more versatile and a worthy comparison to the x-king.
If I wanted to talk about michelins I would have posted on the Michelin tire thread. You'd be crazy to pay the price to just ship one tire over.

Locally I pay $45USD for michelins.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Can someone please measure their installed and inflated X-Kings? Tread and casing width (and height if possible), good to know for both 2.2 and 2.4.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr.SJ said:


> Confusion - yes, unfortunately.
> But also the production of the RK 2.2 will change and they will have the size of the XK 2.2.
> I have read in a forum an email, that Conti is knowing about the confusion and that they have to endure at least one year with angry riders complaining about this and all the old RK´s have disappeared from the market.
> If I am right, from 2011 it will be:
> ...


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


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Finally mounted the 2.2 on a crest rim and took it for a spin. Quite tight and really ping hard onto the bead.Tread width measures 2.1 " the same as MK2.2 and RK 2.2. Volume is slightly more than MK 2.2 and miles less than RK 2.2. As long as mounted on something like a crest the volume is usable. The edge tread is not as large or overhang casing so I can run run them a couple of psi lower than Ra Ra 2.25 which part makes up for lower volume. Rubber compound feels harder than MK and RK and at lower pressure the casing/tread makes a real racket off jumps and large bumps.
Have good grip for xc use and like the RK has a very progressive feel to the grip. On my trails at the moment which are firm loamy sandy base they only have an edge over RK 2.2 when pushed hard[ big lean, lots of weight on the outside pedal and turn out entering the corner]. They will show there worth in conditions a little to loose for the RK. For a trail tire I would go for the MK 2.4. It has better edges as is only marginally slower than the X-king on the rollers.I suspect the TK 2.2 and MK2.4 will be similar in grip but MK lighter and faster with less volume.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

bad mechanic said:


> Conti just replied to my email:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brett Hahn"
> ...


My Folding tyre is smaller than the Steel cheapo, different factory again I suspect.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

So 2.4 in Racesport is smaller than the RK2.2 which means this will go onto the limited clearance FS then and the Tiger Claw can go back onto the rigid nice cush ride off that.

Nice to have a bit more all round ability on the rear of the FS and BC to keep the rolling resistance down.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Don't expect the X-king to have the same grip on wet roots and rocks as the RK and MK 1 . The compound feels more like RA RA side tread or No Ni hardness. They may have raised it to get the speed up on the taller tread? They may keep the softer compound for new MK ?


----------



## Richy (Jun 8, 2006)

I assume the 2.2 XK is a similar size to the 2.25 RoRo?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Richy said:


> I assume the 2.2 XK is a similar size to the 2.25 RoRo?


Don't have a Ro Ro but it would be smaller in tread width. It's a couple of mm smaller than the 2.25 Ra Ra in casing and tread width and about 1 mm in height. Appears to ride relatively smooth for it's size on the front as I can run reasonably low psi using a crest rim. I haven't tried it on the back to see how low psi I can go before squirm . I wouldn't like to use it on a 17mm rim.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Mounted, the X-King 2.2 is a lot smaller (50,4mm) than the Rocket Ron 2.25 (54,5mm), mainly because the side knobs don't stick out as much.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Turveyd said:


> My Folding tyre is smaller than the Steel cheapo, different factory again I suspect.


From their email, it looks like the only tire which will have the super high volume is the 2.2 Supersonic.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

XK 2.4 Protection has just arrived, volume and internal width is key to me so .....


I've got a Aspen 2.25 ( used and stretched maybe ), which I know is 3mm's wider inside than the RK2.2 ( still fitted to the bike ), the XK 2.4 Pro ( unstretched ) is +5mm's ontop of that so the XK2.4 Pro is volume tastic as far as I'm concerned and it'll be going onto the rigid as sadly it won't fit in the FS from the look of it 

The rubber feels like 70a to me, maybe even harder, atleast the knobs won't squirm.

Tyre not inflated the knobs are resisting being pushing into the casing nicely so should run at a low pressure thanks to the nylon protection insert without going squirmy to.

It's looking like the PERFECT Rear tyre to me, I'll try it out later all being well, hoping the protection part does slow down the rebound as some of the reviews are saying.

I'll have to try it on the front aswell later in the week.

Haven't got any accurate measurement equipment unfortunately.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Ahhh there is a sticker inside saying 70 i guess that confirms the 70a compound


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

Turveyd said:


> XK 2.4 Protection has just arrived, volume and internal width is key to me so .....
> 
> I've got a Aspen 2.25 ( used and stretched maybe ), which I know is 3mm's wider inside than the RK2.2 ( still fitted to the bike ), the XK 2.4 Pro ( unstretched ) is +5mm's ontop of that so the XK2.4 Pro is volume tastic as far as I'm concerned and it'll be going onto the rigid as sadly it won't fit in the FS from the look of it
> 
> ...


Appreciate the update. Will be looking forward to your ride report. I'm interested in trying out these tires.. just wish they would hit the US distributors soon.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I imported from Germany cost £5 extra so not the end of the world.

Fitting currently and I'll compare to a stretched RK2.2 Folder!!


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Attached some pictures of the X-King 2.2 on the weightscale, as well as folded open compared to the Racing Ralph 2.25

Weight of the X-King 2.2 is 497g, although the other 8 tires I have vary all between 515 - 526g.

The Racing Ralph Pacestar 2.25 2011 picutered weighs 526g, although I've got another one that's only 496g.

Notice the thread pattern of the Racing Ralph is about 1cm wider as the X-King.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

RK 2.2 Folding to XK 2.4 Pro is +5mm's internal width, the XK will likely stretch a bit to like the RK did, so maybe +8mm's.

Room between the tire and the On One wishbone thingy will tell me the height approx.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Casing height is the same, sitting fractionally higher cause of the deeper lugs, so still wouldn't fit into the FS  It's wider than the RK2.2 and has a rounder profile.

Just a road test so far and tiny bit of rough ground with bricks :-

1. I've got it running softer than I run the RK2.2 with less drag. 
2. Volume feels much better hitting kerbs at speed.
3. I think I can feel the slow rebound after landing down stuff, less of a sharp spike.

Impressed, mate had a go on it and wants to order 1 aswell.

Also goes onto the rim tight but easy should come off okay unlike some tyres.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Turveyd said:


> Also goes onto the rim tight but easy should come off okay unlike some tyres.


For a tubeless ready tire they still fit pretty easily. Mounted a set of Schwalbe Nobby Nic's 2.1 2011 Pacestar (tubeless ready) last weekend on a friend of mine's bike, by using soapy water... the Schwalbe's are so tight we wonder how we will ever be able to take them off with or without tire levers (preferably without of course).


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

What's the weight on the XK 2.4?


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

bad mechanic said:


> What's the weight on the XK 2.4?


Bad mechanic = bad reader, that's already answered in post 53


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Had a quick test, although the tyre runs at a okay rolling speed at the low pressure and is really comfy, it's not liking the 17mm XC Rim (want a new wheel anyway) rolling around, but shows potential for speed + comfort on the rigid and races around nicely ran harder.

Drop the rear wheel into the FS and see if that'll fit I guess just incase.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

I've run my 2.2 about 10 hrs over the weekend and they have stretched about 7 mm across the bead and now easily bigger than MK 2.2. So now about 142mm across the bead[started off about 135]If I mount it up tubeless and run it a bit more I think it will go close to Ro Ro and possibly Ra Ra volume. From experience conti's seem to stretch a lot compared to Schwalbe. So it's a good alternative to Ra Ra 2.25 if you want a bit more tread in the middle of the tire.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Turveyd said:


> RK 2.2 Folding to XK 2.4 Pro is +5mm's internal width, the XK will likely stretch a bit to like the RK did, so maybe +8mm's.
> 
> Room between the tire and the On One wishbone thingy will tell me the height approx.


What's your internal width measurement of the XK 2.4. Madsakingcow posted them as 160mm. His however look like pre-production colours which are different to my XK 2.2.

My RK 2.2's used and stretched are 164mm[ getting a bit used now though].

My XK 2.2 doesn't feel like a 70 compound but I wouldn't be surprised if protections and/or 2.4 use a harder black chilli compound.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Sorry couldn't find my tape measure again, I'll have to buy another 1.

Not seeing any stretch on the Protection, maybe the Nylon layer resists is ??

It does feel the same as other 70's, might be a 2.4 thing to speed them up though.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

It fits in the FS JUST have to let the tire down to fit it talking 4mm's of clearance.

Waiting for the 2.2 Protection but want this on the rear for trail centres on the weekend


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

Woohoo, my XK's arrived!

A bit heavier than the RK 2.2 SS that I have now, but looking forward to trying these out.
Will try to get some pics comparing mounted widths of the XK 2.4 RS and RK 2.2 SS.

Just a hair over mfg published weights.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

They seem to role better at lower pressures on the rear and look front capable to okay thats only comparing to folding none BC RK2.2's which I normally have to run pretty hard to get them to work well and role fast.

Hopefully doing a proper ride tomorrow ( Thursday ) -1c here and ice on the roads to get to the forest so didn't fancy it.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Set it up tubeless. Bead appears to seal well without sealant on a crest. Sadly sidewalls leaked as bad as any RK I have done.


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

Oh no...not exactly what I wanted to hear. Was hoping for a less painful process with the XKs, as the sidewalls 'look' less porous than the RKs. Oh well, about to go mount up one now.

How many scoops did you end up using?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Sealed well though with a couple of scoops and my usual method shaking and dunking in the bath. Since the bead seals so well. Next time I'll use quite a few scoops then once the sidewalls are sealed up I'll pop the bead and poor out the excess and replace with one scoop.
They inflated easy with a floor pump which is a bonus.
I have been riding it for a while and is quite stretched or could have just had a bad one. So best of luck.


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

gvs_nz, Like you said, the XK mounted up easily with the floor pump. Very nice!

So I mounted up the XK on the front last night, put a scoop of Stan's in, gave it a shake-shake-shake and let it sit overnight. Checked it this afternoon, and surprisingly it only lost a few pounds of pressure. No visible seeping from the sidewalls either. So far so good. Should be interesting to see if there is any leakage after a few rides.

Measured the mounted widths (sidewall-to-sidewall) of the XK and RK, and found the XK to be a tad wider. Here is what I got.

Both were mounted on ZTR Olympics, pumped up to 30psi.

RK 2.2 SS = 56.8mm

XK 2.4 RS = 58.4mm

Shown below, RK 2.2 Supersonic (left) vs XK 2.4 Racesport (right)


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

ritoh said:


> gvs_nz, Like you said, the XK mounted up easily with the floor pump. Very nice!
> 
> So I mounted up the XK on the front last night, put a scoop of Stan's in, gave it a shake-shake-shake and let it sit overnight. Checked it this afternoon, and surprisingly it only lost a few pounds of pressure. No visible seeping from the sidewalls either. So far so good. Should be interesting to see if there is any leakage after a few rides.
> 
> ...


Great photos. Can you note which versions of each are shown (my apologies if you've mentioned in a previous thread. As others have noted, and as I've seen myself, there is quite a variance the the width of the RKs, depending on model (UST vs SS, etc.).

Thanks, D


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Ritoh, can you comment on the HEIGHT of the tires once mounted?


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

I got a few x-kings the mail today.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Should last you a few days riding. You've got a variety of colours though.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

all the 2.2's have silver graphics and came in no box, the 2.4's have orange and silver graphics and came in boxes. Just one of the 2.4's is mine, the others are for friends.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

ritoh said:


> > gvs_nz, Like you said, the XK mounted up easily with the floor pump. Very nice!
> >
> > So I mounted up the XK on the front last night, put a scoop of Stan's in, gave it a shake-shake-shake and let it sit overnight. Checked it this afternoon, and surprisingly it only lost a few pounds of pressure. No visible seeping from the sidewalls either. So far so good. Should be interesting to see if there is any leakage after a few rides.
> >
> ...


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

gvs_nz said:


> ritoh said:
> 
> 
> > ritoh, what is the depth of center treads. My 2.2's are 3.2mm which is the same as my 2.4 Ra Ra. I'm hoping XK 2.4 will have a bit more depth of tread. Otherwise I'll stick to 2.4 Ra Ra as they have better edge tread.
> ...


----------



## Stryder75 (Feb 2, 2010)

blantonator said:


> all the 2.2's have silver graphics and came in no box, the 2.4's have orange and silver graphics and came in boxes. Just one of the 2.4's is mine, the others are for friends.


Interesting. The 2.2's I got have the two-tone graphics and came in boxes. I got them from Starbike a couple of weeks ago. One of them is mounted up and running perfect tubelessly. The other is a whole other story. Mounted it up and aired it up and Stan's started spraying everywhere. After stopping the that mess, I took the tire off and did a good inspection. I found two holes (2.5mm), one area where there was a hole in the rubber all the way down to the inner casing and lastly a rather large piece of debris (5mm) molded into the sidewall casing. It was starting to break apart from the casing and leave a rather bare spot. Ad this is right out of the box.

Continental is all over it though and are going to send me a replacement. I am shipping them the tire to inspect for Quality. So lesson learned is to completely inspect every square inch of a tire before installing.

I am loving the Xking though. It is a fast rolling tire and corners like a mad man.


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

beanbag: Mounted on Olympics, the XK 2.4 and RK 2.2 both measured 676-677mm.

gvs_nz: The center treads on my 2.4s measured 3.2-3.3mm, so the same as your 2.2s.

Took them out for a spin today, XK 2.4 RS @ 24psi on the front, RK 2.2 SS @ 26psi on the back. Much improved front grip compared to RK 2.2 SS all the way around. I was able to lean into the corners much further than before. Same good rolling resistance and comfort, but added confidence in the corners :thumbsup: So far liking this setup very much. Btw, trails are hardpack with some loose on top. Also, no leaking or loss in pressure. Going to mount up my other XK in the rear and try it out tomorrow.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Did some back to back runs with XK 2.2 and old MK 2.2 SS. Looking at resurrecting old MK 2.2 on the front and XK 2.2 on the rear for next winter races[crest rims are good for giving skinny tires a new lease of life]. We now have conditions a bit looser[sand] to try the XK 2.2 on. It felt better than the MK 2.2. Like the RK it feels bigger than it is and the grip is consistent and generous[all the tread shares the cornering load not just the edge treads]. Even the 2.2 size is a good partner to the RK 2.2 on the rear. Any course you can run a RK 2.2 on the rear the XK 2.2 will have plenty of grip up front. Not as much cush as the RK 2.2 but adequate at lower pressure.
I've had trouble holding pressure tubeless[hopefully sorted now] but the tire makes a crackling sound when the pressure gets low[ RK is similar]. it's a handy low pressure indicator.
It's grown a bit more after being run tubeless. I'm sure it's getting close to a Ra Ra 2.25 in volume now[Haven't got my Ra Ra's here at the moment].

Here's pic of relative size at 28 psi.
XK2.2 on ZTR crest, casing 54.2mm and RK 2.2 on ZTR355, casing 56.8mm


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

The silver one's are OEM tires, not supposed to be sold retail.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

maybe someone have ridden on them about 1k km o more? what about their endurance? It's time to change tyres and I'm choosing between x-king and racing ralph.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I think xk will last longer harder rubber and BC improves life, xk looks more of a all rounder should handle mud better. Try it out tomorrow at a trail centre.

Had to modify my bike to make it fit, filed the frame down by the bb gained 3mms of clearance lol


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Did back to back with XK 2.2 and Ra Ra 2.4 on the front in loose sandy conditions on a hard base. XK 2.2 spanked the Ralph until I dropped the pressure on the Ralph a couple of psi and could almost match the XK. I can't run that pressure on fast technical decents without risk of burping and I can't run it that low on 2.25 Ra Ra. So the XK is going to spank the Ra Ra in loose over hard conditions. The well spaced even tread gives a huge transitional area[ it's all shoulder] to rail around in the loose.Those used to the Maxxis style tire of nothing in the middle and all on the edges may not agree? 
The XK 2.2 felt faster than the Ra Ra on hard pack when I had the Ra Ra at the higher pressure. At the lower pressure the Ra Ra took on that silky ground hugging feel like the RK 2.2 and felt faster over rough terrain.
The XK's hard bristly small tread blocks can get knocked off line on dry tree roots. That's going to be compounded in the wet.For that reason it may not be the ultimate wet condition tire that many are hoping for. It's certainly close to that for loose over hard dry conditions.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

gvs_nz said:


> It's certainly close to that for loose over hard dry conditions.


Does this mean that there's not much sense in spending money for an XK for those who already own a pair of Michelin Wildrockr/grip'r and like them for the said conditions? Have you compared them with XK directly?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

I haven't tried both back to back yet. 
From memory, in the same conditions:
The wildgrip'r 2.25 has better centre and transitional grip than the Ra Ra 2.4 and the wild rock'r 2.1 would have similar handling to the XK 2.2[ but a bit slower].The 2.1 Grip'r is bigger and feels if it would be faster[ not as much grip] than the xk2.2 on rough terrain. And the 2.25 grip'r is silky smooth compared to the xk2.2. The Xk will handle more variety of conditions than the michelins.As the Michelins don't like wet slippery things, the XK can only be better on wet tree roots and slippery clay?[ hopefully it will rain soon]
The xk is expensive at the moment and I'm still going to hack around on the Michelins and reserve the expensive toys for racing.
If I only had one bike, and the XK turned out to be ok on the wet slippery stuff, then the xk 2.4 would be a very good tire.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Got a good test on the 2.4 Pro Rear today at Welsh Trail centre, at first it slipped a few times let out a tad of air or it got scrubbed in and perfect tire the rest of the ride, not much mud, loads of slippy roots no issue, loads of rocks and slate on purposely putting the power down on the wet rocks and not 1 spin out, really comfy to, feels like more volume than it is, had to run the rear shock faster which kinda proves the damping effect from the Pro's casing. Slight bit of mud, but wet mud cleared instantly not a issue.

Even ran soft, no noticable drag on fire roads climbs and the like the RK 2.2 Folder I run harder and it drags more so 

PERFECT 10/10 Score, it for once was worth the wait and the expense


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

With this particular tyre I will be racing with a tube. It's too unreliable tubeless. I can see why European teams are still using tubes with them. Like the RK's this one keeps stretching and leaking. I'd be interested to see if others are having same problem. Stryder75 had tire defects. Initially I also had a couple of pinholes that I could hear air leaking from. Sealant squirted out of them when I did the shake thing.

I'm having a reasonably big quick loss of air during rides then sealing up ok for the rest of the ride. Checking it in the bath afterwards is the normal small leakage you get from RK as they settle in.
I suspect those two pinholes are opening up again during the ride.

But they could even be burping when cornering hard and fast over tree roots. I've seen previous threads where full UST tyres have been burping on normal rims. I would have put that down to the stiffer sidewalls transferring the bump force down to the bead. 

Until I get more miles on them tubeless they are staying tubed for races.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

The bead on my XK looked kinda random, so I wouldn't risk the Protection version if I was you, shame though as the extra thick Nylon reinforcement should of sorted out your sidewall issues.

Nothing wrong with Tubes anyway especially if the Protection is as good as they say.


----------



## cddaraa (Oct 19, 2009)

Any comments on the volume(2.2 or 2.4 I dont care)? I need them to be bigger in volume than the Ro Ro 2.1


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Don't have a Ro Ro to compare with but I hear they are pretty small. Xk 2.2 is smallish out of the box but has stretched to a good average 2.2 tire volume.Not old school conti small anyway. The XK 2.4 sounds like it is extra big in comparison and you could probably fit four Ro Ro 2.1's inside a XK 2.4.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

2.4's inner casing is a few mm's bigger new than a stretched RK2.2, Don't think the Protection has stretched though.

Roles so well, I wouldn't bother with the 2.2 not feeling any drag from it at all, which is kind of weird even on the road.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

gvs_nz said:


> With this particular tyre I will be racing with a tube. It's too unreliable tubeless. I can see why European teams are still using tubes with them. Like the RK's this one keeps stretching and leaking. I'd be interested to see if others are having same problem. Stryder75 had tire defects. Initially I also had a couple of pinholes that I could hear air leaking from. Sealant squirted out of them when I did the shake thing.
> 
> I'm having a reasonably big quick loss of air during rides then sealing up ok for the rest of the ride. Checking it in the bath afterwards is the normal small leakage you get from RK as they settle in.
> I suspect those two pinholes are opening up again during the ride.
> ...


Put 50 psi in overnight to see if I could make it leak. One of the mfg defect pinholes broke loose. So I guess that will be the problem. I eventually went back to latex tubes on the RK's as well, so no loss.

Pretty poor mfg control for a very expensive tire.Two of us have mfg defects already.


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

gvs_nz said:


> I suspect those two pinholes are opening up again during the ride.


Not that you should have to do so with a tire that costs so much and is designed for tubeless use, but couldn't you just patch the two pinholes if the bead/sidewalls are airtight otherwise?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

May do eventually but It suits me to run tubed[I'm not a tubeless zealot] at the moment to swap out with other tires as we are still getting changeable weather.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

X-King RaceSport 2.4" on an XTR rim with a tube measures about 1mm wider at the carcass than the RK2.2 SS on the same rims. And it just fits in my Rocky Vertex RSL frame


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Be interested to see how you think it goes in the wet.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I expect to have an opportunity to try that this weekend sometime as it will be wet and the snow/ice will mostly have melted. I have the RK and MK as base lines for comparison in mud and over wet roots and rocks


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Think you will have serious issues with leeves / wet grass getting between frame and tire.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I've got a RM element, there very short in the chain stays aren't they limiting tire sizes hugely, Alu frame here I had to turn file down the round tube to a flat 1 to get me 3mm's extra for this sucker to work, totally worth it though 

I still had weird noises likely stuff stuck between the frame and the tire last ride, there is room to take another mm or 2 off though 

Rear wise Zero issues in the wet, great tyre totally predictable and loads of grip, BC really works well out back, despite 70a compound.


----------



## wpuk (May 13, 2008)

:idea: Subscribed


----------



## y0bailey (Dec 19, 2006)

Has anyone found these in the US yet? I want for X-mas!


----------



## Chase1996 (Jun 30, 2010)

^^^^This


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Well I can't say I have a report based on purely wet conditions, it was still quite snowy in the woods, and slushy/snowy here and there in between. The X-King makes a very respectable snow tire, lots of climbing traction in snow and semi-frozen slush/snow. The hardtail has a slightly steep head angle to have the best handling in the deeper snowy areas, the front end pushes around a bit when hitting different snow consistency. The mud was semi-frozen slurpee consistency so I don't have an exact idea of how it's going to handle in the typical oatmeal mud. 

On the paved roads to the trails, the tire rolls incredibly fast, quiet and smooth. None of the tingle inducing tire knob buzz up the seatpost like the MK produces. 

It sure seems to be a good blend of knob depth, grip, and speed. It has incredibly good grip on wet and slush covered wood. These are pretty gummy feeling tires, certainly similar in squishiness to the fresh RK and MK Supersonics. The tire definitely hangs onto the leaf gruel on the trail better than the RK. (edit: comparing the rubber squishiness to a set of older Conti Explorer's I have here, with 60a hardness rubber, and a set of Nokian NBX 2.3 with a 61a hardness rubber, the X-King rubber is definitely softer than those tires, they compare favourably with the BC rubber in the MK 2.4 SuperSonics.)


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Good to know Rocky as I've got Snow inbound currently here in the UK, maybe a sprinkling on the hills already, hmmmmm.


----------



## xc71 (Dec 24, 2008)

Rocky, did you weigh your two X-king 2.4.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

588 and 585gms. Pretty tight grouping.


----------



## xc71 (Dec 24, 2008)

Thanks Rocky.I have Race King 2.2 @ 446 & 460 grams.Was hoping the weight was going to be closer.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The X-King 2.2 is down in that range, I'm curious if the extra knob rubber might make up for having to run some extra pressure to compensate for the smaller volume.


----------



## Chase1996 (Jun 30, 2010)

y0bailey said:


> Has anyone found these in the US yet? I want for X-mas!


I received a response from the NA distributor for Continental. Jan-March US release for 2011 tires. X-King is expected in late January.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm thinking about buying these tires, here in chile we have a climate is hot and dry summer, and I want to feel as they roll here. Any suggestions if I buy the 2.2 or 2.4? and which version? Greetings friends from Chile!
Sorry for my English


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Stryder75 said:


> I am loving the Xking though. It is a fast rolling tire and corners like a mad man.


Any comparisons/opinions on how it corners compared to a MK2.4 SS? I have been running the MK2.4 SS up front and a RK2.2 SS on the rear for a long time now, and I love the combo except for in very dry conditions in mid-summer when the MK tends to just wash out with little warning. We get a mix of conditions here from wet to bone-dry, and I'd like to replace my MK front for an XK2.4 RS if it will corner better. Also, setting up the old SS's for tubeless was a bit of a pain.

It looks like my tires next year will be my remaining RK2.2 SS on the rear (pretty much killed the one I was using last year, so the spare is going on) and either an XK 2.4 RS or maybe the new MK2 once it arrives.

I'm attaching my tire volume calculator spreadsheet that I've been using for comparisons. I measure the tires just like Rockyuphill did in post 121 - the carcass width, not the knob width. "Height" refers to the distance from the outer edge of the rim to the top of the carcass, not to the top of the knobs. I made some assumptions to calculate the volume, but those assumptions are kept constant for every tire you see, so you can compare the values to each other with good accuracy. The "Measured on" column is the internal width of the rim used with the tire for that measurement. You can see how the rim width affects volume by comparing the RK and MK tires on the 19mm and 21mm rims that I have.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

There's less knob squirm with the X-King 2.4 RaceSport than the MK2.4 SS. The MK2.4 works best with very soft trail surface where you can get deep knob penetration into the trail surface. From the riding comparison so far I'd say that the XK2.4 will be better across a wider variety of trail surface, but may not be quite as good in soft and mucky surfaces as the MK. (Now if they would just reintroduce the Survival Pro 2.3 in Black Chili...)

I's interesting how you can feel the difference between the cush provided by the rubber knobs like the X-King or just by the carcass like the RK. I've mixed a pair of special edition Vertical Pro 2.3 Protection in Black Chili into my recent riding. That super sturdy sidewall has very little flex and rides very differently than either the RK 2.2, MK2.4 or XK2.4, there is little sidewall deflection but the knobs are big and cushy, but it's not as buzzy in the seatpost as the MK 2.4.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I moved the X-King 2.4's from XTR rims on a hardtail to a pair of Edge AM wheels on my 140mm travel FS bike. Holy doodle, the carcass measures 58mm wide on a 30mm wide rim. Talk about a big volume tire. And yet they weigh the same as the MK 2.4 SS that I had on there before. They're almost 2mm wider than the MK 2.4 SS were on the same rims.


----------



## Stryder75 (Feb 2, 2010)

I have now been able to get a few rides on my XKing 2.2 Race sports since receiving the rear replacement. Man, I love the tire! great traction and tracking. They roll fast and handle the trails I ride with ease. That being said, mine have proven to be a ***** to get setup tubeless. I am running aplines with tape and the tires just don't like being ridden. I am on my third "adding sealant" round and hoping this works. Each time before, they held air great while the bike hung on the wall. Take them for a ride and by mile 4-5, I find myself riding on limp noodles and having to pump them up just to make it back to the car. I like riding with 28-30 psi and experienced no problems with my previous setup of kenda Nevagal/SB8. These just seem to have very thin side walls that leak air like the supersonics. I was hoping the new race sports would be a little better than the supersonics, but at least for me, they are not. So here is hoping application three will be the one. It sucks being out on a ride and getting into the ride only to have to cut it short due to the tires not holding air. I didn't spend the money on tubeless to have to run tubes.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I got some 2.4 X-King Racesports from Starbike. Mounted them on RXL wheels with the Bonty strip and valves cut from Vredstien tubes (they have a removable core) Tires mounted pretty easily with a steady blast from my compressor last night. No soap or anything. Threw in Caffe Latex and still won't hold air for extended period of time. Not a ton of sealant coming out of pinholes though. Doing the rotate and lay wheel on side thing. I'll give it time and see if it ends up working.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'm thinking about buying these tires, here in chile we have a climate is hot and dry summer, and I want to feel as they roll here. Any suggestions if I buy the 2.2 or 2.4? and which version? Greetings friends from Chile!
> Sorry for my English


As far as mine go, I'd say the 2.4's look really good. I haven't ridden them yet, waiting for them to hold air. Can't wait.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2009)

Okey thanks my Friend!!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Has anyone with the racesports had any luck getting them to hold air? If so, what did you use? 

I think I'm gonna take this Caffe stuff out. Did the dunk test and it looks like a pot that is about to boil. Just tons of bubbles all over the side wall. The bead is fine, even the ghetto valve rig up is fine. It's the tires and the Caffe stuff that won't seal up. 
I have some Stans that was given to me about 3 years ago. It's like 2/3's of quart bottle. Does the Stans stuff go bad or should I be good to use it?


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

jochribs said:


> Has anyone with the racesports had any luck getting them to hold air? If so, what did you use?
> 
> I think I'm gonna take this Caffe stuff out. Did the dunk test and it looks like a pot that is about to boil. Just tons of bubbles all over the side wall. The bead is fine, even the ghetto valve rig up is fine. It's the tires and the Caffe stuff that won't seal up.
> I have some Stans that was given to me about 3 years ago. It's like 2/3's of quart bottle. Does the Stans stuff go bad or should I be good to use it?


How high are you going on your PSI? I had to bump my Conti Supersonic's up to 50 psi to get my Stan's to actually start sealing them. Just be careful at that pressure (Bonti rims say not to exceed 60psi.)


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

tussery said:


> How high are you going on your PSI? I had to bump my Conti Supersonic's up to 50 psi to get my Stan's to actually start sealing them. Just be careful at that pressure (Bonti rims say not to exceed 60psi.)


I think I'll try that. I never went above 40 psi while I was mounting them, and then I've been only going to 20 and 30 psi while trying to seal them. My thought was that the lower pressure might allow the sealant to set-up without getting pushed through. Clearly not working though. Funny thing is that there was no sealant pushing through the side walls at all (except for the first night I set them up, and that was just a few pin holes) but when I dunked it in water the side walls were covered in rolling bubbles. Wonder why the sealant wasn't weaping and frothing out?

I'll try the higher pressure. Thanks Tussery.

***just checked the wheels and the rear seems to be holding. The front is softer, but not as bad as it had been getting before, and this is over night this time. Interesting thing is that I weighed the tires before I put them on. The tire I used on the front came in at 555gr. and the rear was 568gr. It seems that little bit of weight in the rear has helped with the sidewalls.

I'm going to put a little more sealant in and bump the pressure up and see if that does the trick.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

4x X-King Protection 26 x 2.4 arrived today - weights are all over the place 607g / 623g / 665g / 690g

tires were in transit for 18 days from bike24 de - extra security in customs is really slowing parcels down lately - minor grumble

they seem to be really well made & much nicer overall compared to the black chili Mountain King Protection tires they replace - first impression the compound isn't quite as malleable as a black chili Race King SuperSonic, tires have a 70 sticker inside

really looking forward to trying them out













...edit to add pics...


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

Wow, 83g difference between the lightest and heaviest one? Conti has some pretty lenient tolerances on these...

607g for a Protection version is very enticing though. Just 40g more than my XK 2.4 RS (561g & 567g).

Luckily my XK has had very minimal pressure loss since mounted up exactly one month ago. So far I have about 15 rides on it, with no problems whatsoever (I run it up front with an RK in the back).

As where the sidewalls on the RK start to look a bit worn and 'shredded' after riding on rocky/chunky trails, the XK seems to fare much better. I imagine the Protection version would be even better.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I wouldn't put much stock in a 70 sticker, 70 durometer rubber is quite hard.

OK, here's my cheap and dirty Shore Durometer setup, doesn't meet standards, but I was after a comparison between the RK 2.2 SS, the MK2.4 SS and the X-King 2.4 RS. It's a pair of needlenose Vice-Grips with a small brad nail in the jaws. That assembly weighs 172gms. There's a photo of each with the pointy bit held above the knob and then with the weight of the Vice-Grips pushing the brad into the knob. It was lowered onto the knob so there's no gravitational acceleration at play before it makes contact with the knob (it doesn't get a run at the knob).

The amount of penetration is pretty darn close in all three tires.

The Race King WorldCup 2.2
















The Mountain King 2.4 Supersonic
















The X-King 2.4 RaceSport


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> I wouldn't put much stock in a 70 sticker, 70 durometer rubber is quite hard.


Yeah, if you're talking about the round numbered stickers on the inside of the tires, mine had a 25 sticker in one and I believe 37 in the other. Must just be manufacturing.

My racesports definitely did not do well with the Caffe Latex (I guess that isn't a big surprise). I wanted to give it a go as this is my first time going tubeless and I didn't want to use something with ammonia, but that stuff is water. I kind of doubt the effectiveness of putting dome sort of filler (rubber flecks, glitter etc.) in it also, because I imagine the stuff will get suspended in the bubbles and not actually make it to the holes with any reliable consistency. The idea of the Caffe stuff is rad, it just doesn't work though.

After I cleaned the Caffe out I put in some Stan's last night that had been given to me about 3 years back. I used the Caffe syringe to put it in through the valve stem. It had a sort of gritty feel to it. It shut the hissing pinholes down with a few shakes. Wish I had just used this first. The tires have lost a touch of pressure overnight, but are nowhere near being flat. I think I'll rotate/shake em a bit later and air em back up.

Is the newer Stan's still gritty like the 3 year old stuff I just used?


----------



## bquinn (Mar 12, 2007)

Has anyone tried some Slime Pro sealant in the XK? I've used it with great success on other tires, but don't have a XK to try it on...yet.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

no but i plan to late today 

did use Slime Pro last week while inflating a new (but pre mounted + stretched) 2010 Rocket Ron EVO 26x 2.25 converted to tubeless on a DT XRC rim - 1 1/3 scoops swooshed about in the tire with one hand & pumping on a floorpump with the other - it was almost miraculous how easy the bead popped & sealed compared to Stans or Protect Air

will by purchasing more ... Pro seems to be alot better than the old slime :thumbsup:

...edit for silly typo - new years resolution will be to spell check before posting ...


----------



## rufus (Jun 15, 2004)

culturesponge said:


> tires were in transit for 18 days from bike24 de - extra security in customs is really slowing parcels down lately - minor grumble


Makes me feel a bit better. Been waiting 16 days now for a set of Hope hubs from Wiggle.

Just got a 2.4MK last week that was almost 800 grams, 150 or so more than the stated weight should have been. Think this might be too big for my frame anyway, I'll try it, but might end up with either these XK's, or the new MK2, in a 2.2.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> I wouldn't put much stock in a 70 sticker, 70 durometer rubber is quite hard.
> 
> OK, here's my cheap and dirty Shore Durometer setup, doesn't meet standards, but I was after a comparison between the RK 2.2 SS, the MK2.4 SS and the X-King 2.4 RS. It's a pair of needlenose Vice-Grips with a small brad nail in the jaws. That assembly weighs 172gms. There's a photo of each with the pointy bit held above the knob and then with the weight of the Vice-Grips pushing the brad into the knob. It was lowered onto the knob so there's no gravitational acceleration at play before it makes contact with the knob (it doesn't get a run at the knob).
> 
> The amount of penetration is pretty darn close in all three tires.


brilliant information - thanks for posting :thumbsup:


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

I always thought the stickers inside were the code number of the process worker who mfg the tire.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

[


> QUOTE=rockyuphill]I wouldn't put much stock in a 70 sticker, 70 durometer rubber is quite hard.
> 
> OK, here's my cheap and dirty Shore Durometer setup, doesn't meet standards, but I was after a comparison between the RK 2.2 SS, the MK2.4 SS and the X-King 2.4 RS. It's a pair of needlenose Vice-Grips with a small brad nail in the jaws. That assembly weighs 172gms. There's a photo of each with the pointy bit held above the knob and then with the weight of the Vice-Grips pushing the brad into the knob. It was lowered onto the knob so there's no gravitational acceleration at play before it makes contact with the knob (it doesn't get a run at the knob).
> 
> The amount of penetration is pretty darn close in all three tires.


Bit more high tech than my fingernail tests. Grind off the end of your nail and you may get some difference in the results.

Here's the point used in Shore A.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

gvs_nz said:


> I always thought the stickers inside were the code number of the process worker who mfg the tire.


makes sense


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

gvs_nz said:


> Bit more high tech than my fingernail tests. Grind off the end of your nail and you may get some difference in the results.
> 
> Here's the point used in Shore A.


That's why I went with a brad nail, they aren't a fine point to start with, this one is noticeably blunt at the "point". I'm also almost 650gms light on the weight on the point too.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Looks like a good representation then. Their harder feel must be an illusion because of the shape of the tread.

Your initial impression was good in the slush. Have you pushed them hard in to corners, on the front, over wet tree roots yet?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Wet tree roots are still best handled with the wheel as square to the root as possible, but they have seen some roots at angled crossings without drama. I haven't pushed them hard yet, but they are at least as confidence inspiring as the RK's on smooth wet roots and rocks, much less squirm than the MK's on hard surfaces.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

PSA for folks in the United States: there are some XK 2.4 RaceSports in stock at Highway 2 (a distributor), so if you're desparate for a set, your LBS can order some up if you act fast.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

just got mine sealed up today. 
Xking 2.2 in the front and race king ss 2.0 in the rear.

wont get to test it out for a bit but it came in at 517g


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

Anyone have the "height" of the XKing 2.4 Pro ? I'm running Conti TK 2.2 and hope the XKings are not taller than those due to frame fit...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Give or take 54mm tall on 30mm wide rim, likely be closer to 56mm tall on a 20mm wide rim


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2009)

:madmax: I'm waiting for more than 18 days my tires XKing RS 2.2 from Germany. :madmax: 
The test will be in Chile and sand volcanoes (Volcan Osorno www.cvo.cl) and I want to see how they work under conditions of rain and dry.:thumbsup:


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

ridetheridge said:


> Anyone have the "height" of the XKing 2.4 Pro ? I'm running Conti TK 2.2 and hope the XKings are not taller than those due to frame fit...


they're slightly taller than race king 2.2's.


----------



## DGB (Sep 8, 2007)

I just measured there. I'm running RQ front / XK rear on DT EX1750; XK 2.4 Protection is ~53mm tall and the RQ 2.2 is ~55mm tall.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

mechBgon said:


> PSA for folks in the United States: there are some XK 2.4 RaceSports in stock at Highway 2 (a distributor), so if you're desparate for a set, your LBS can order some up if you act fast.


Also here to:
just recieved confirmation that my 2.4's shipped today (ordered today!) Price was pretty good as well. $46.75 each with the 15% discount they are currently offering. Hopefully I can get them to seal up...

http://www.biketiresdirect.com/product/continental-x-king-racesport-mtb-tire


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Just mounted my 2.4 race sports on crank bros cobalts. Weights were 585 and 571. 

This was my first time setting up tubeless and so far it has been fairly pleasant. Added 2 scoops of stans per wheel, aired up w/ a floor pump and they are holding great. Dunked them in the tub and no leaks whatsoever.

Didn't take any measurements, but 2.4's look plump. Just eyeballing them I'd say slightly more volume than the RK's 2.2's. Almost wish I had ordered a 2.2 for the rear.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Any chance of a pic of yours mounted? I think I will order some as well.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

I just ordered some 2.4 Protections from Starbike. Hopefully I'll get them in the next two/three weeks. I'll try to provide a short ride report in comparison to my Conti TK 2.2, which I like alot.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

CTB said:


> Any chance of a pic of yours mounted? I think I will order some as well.


Here are some XK 2.4 RaceSport photos: https://s240.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/mechBgon/bike_parts/XK_RS24/ In these photos, I mounted one on a Mavic X517 with a tube, at 30psi, to get some comparative measurements to a new RaceKing 2.2 Supersonic. The height measurement is from the rim to the top of the casing, not to the top of the knobs.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Excellent photos. Very good demonstration of different shaped tires with similar volume.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Continental X King VS Kenda Small Block 8*

*X KING* / *SMALL BLOCK 8 SB8*

REAR TIRE Application - I am looking for feedback on a Kenda Small Block 8 versus the new Continental X King for DRY, all mountain conditions, rear tire specific.

Anyone? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

The 2.35 SB8 felt fast and great at first, handled mud nicely to surprisingly then with only a tiny bit of wear become a REAL DRAG and lost the ability to handle anything other than road.

Everything I've tried the XK 2.4 Pro on it's loves, wet rocks I've been stomping the pedals trying to make it slip out on purpose it won't, rolls really fast to, faster then the RK2.2 without BC.

I believe you can get RK2.2's soon with BC without going Supersonic ?? RK's are a great tire, but the XK beats it, likely better for all dry.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Kenda Small Block 8 / Continental X King*

Thanks Turveyd... would you say the X King rolls faster than a Kenda small Block 8? The X King looks like it could hook up better (which usually means slower), but with the Black Chilli, I am curious if the X King is actually faster than the SB8?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Faster for sure, similar volume from memory, SB8's don't do well in a few rolling tests I've seen either, and yes it's all about the BC stuff.

Using it in winter muddy conditions here, running it fairly soft for me and its still rolling silently on the rear even on road sections.

Others have noticed the SB8 very quickly drop it's performance to.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Continental X King / Small Block 8 / Nobby Nic/Mountain King 2*

*MOUNTAIN KING 2* front / *X KING* rear

I was going run a 2011 2.25 Nobby Nic w/ the new rubber compound (which is different from 2010) up front and a Kenda Small Block 8 in the rear for the DRY conditions here in Bend, Oregon. Given this new Continental line, I think I will be buying a 2011 Mountain King II 2.4 w/black chilli up front and run a Conti X King / BC in the rear.

The MK II closely resembles a Nobby Nic, but according to German Tire test (sorry, I cannot get the link from the PDF I am viewing), the 2011 MK rolls faster, but the 2011 NN grips better (no surprise here).

I am beginning to believe that a Conti X King would be a better choice for a rear tire application over the Kenda SB8, since I agree with Turveyd that the smaller tread of the SB8 will lose traction fast once worn or clogged.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2009)

*X-King 2.2 RaceSport!!*

my tires finally arrived from Germany! :thumbsup:


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Hey Pat-
Any chance of posting some pics once you get those 2.2's mounted?


----------



## Flboy (Mar 18, 2008)

Would you guys say the Xkings corner as well as the original MK's? Not that the MK's are great but they are they at least that good.


----------



## kunis8 (Jan 17, 2011)

tmc71 said:


> Hey Pat-
> Any chance of posting some pics once you get those 2.2's mounted?


Here you have 2.2 XKing mounted on SLR rim vs 2.1 Racing ralph on ST rim:

https://img155.imageshack.us/i/dsc06281r.jpg/

https://img402.imageshack.us/i/dsc06291d.jpg/


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2009)

*Xking 2.2*



tmc71 said:


> Hey Pat-
> Any chance of posting some pics once you get those 2.2's mounted?


Hello everybody!!!

My tires X-King 2.2 Race Sport!!

for CVO RACE 2011 :thumbsup:


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Hello everybody!!!
> 
> My tires X-King 2.2 Race Sport!!
> 
> for CVO RACE 2011 :thumbsup:


How wide is the casing on the 2.2 when mounted on a wheel, Pat (or anyone)?


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Just got my XK RaceSports from Starbike yesterday... They shipped them on 12/22 so it's total of 20 days (!) I got a pair of 2.4s at 584g / 578g and a pair of 2.2s at 516g / 511g. 

Anyway, put the 2.2 pair on last nite (mounted on Mavic SLRs). The bead sealed up pretty good like my other UST tires. However there are noticeable sidewall leaks on both tires, 1.5 caps of Stan's on each tire and pumped them up at 50psi. Also did the rotation and lay them flat. 

Well, this morning one tire is down to 15psi and 35pis on the other... Guess I need to do a couple more rounds (sealant / air) and hopefully to ride them by the weekend.


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

just got done mounting my racesport 2.4's. started with 2 scoops sealant side walls leaked like a crazy. they leaked just like yours put another scoop in did the bucket thing for 2 days they have been holding at 40 psi now for 4 days. there mounted on mavic 819s chris king hubs.the hardest thing to seal was the random pin holes that would open up at random.


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

speedracerxx said:


> just got done mounting my racesport 2.4's. started with 2 scoops sealant side walls leaked like a crazy. they leaked just like yours put another scoop in did the bucket thing for 2 days they have been holding at 40 psi now for 4 days. there mounted on mavic 819s chris king hubs.the hardest thing to seal was the random pin holes that would open up at random.


Did you have to clean the release agent from the inside of the tire, or did you just pop in the sealant? I'm about to mount one.

Thanks

-D


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

just put in the sealant..after the tire streched for a few days it sealed rite up.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

speedracerxx said:


> just got done mounting my racesport 2.4's. started with 2 scoops sealant side walls leaked like a crazy. they leaked just like yours put another scoop in did the bucket thing for 2 days they have been holding at 40 psi now for 4 days. there mounted on mavic 819s chris king hubs.the hardest thing to seal was the random pin holes that would open up at random.


Same here, 2 scoops per. Front tire sealed up easily and has been holding for 5 days.

Rear has been completely opposite. Random, larger than pin holes, prob. 4-6 of them. Did the whole shake, flip, let them sit thing for a day. Dunked them several times in the tub, rode down the street and they were holding...Until I rode them on the trail. 2 or 3 of the larger than pinholes opened up once again. Aired them up and shook them, sealed temporarily, then the same holes kept opening up. My ride pretty much sucked. Loved the tires for the few moments that the rear was holding though.

Took them home, repeated the shake, flip, sit routine, put them in the tub and they were holding. Held overnight also. Put the bike on the rack, drove to the trail for a redemption ride and the same freaking 2-3 slightly larger than pinholes emerged!!!! I didn't even get on the bike!!! Totallly pissed, I said F it and didn't want my ride to get ruined again so I put a tube in and rode. Again, loved the tire when it had air it in.

Not yet willing to give up, I started the whole process over. 2 cups of stans, shake, flip, sit over several cycles. Seems to be holding....for now... I don't know why the front has been so easy and the rear such a hassle. Only thing I can think of is that the rear holes seemed a little bigger than the normal pinholes that I had in the front tire. Also, I made sure on the second go around that I held the stans upside down for about a min. after I shook it to get those flakes down in there.

If it doesn't hold this time, at least I've got some tubes!! Again, great tire when there's air in it!!!!

Any help, tips or encouraging words are appreciated!!!


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

mine had some big holes on the side also once i added the third scoop of stans did the bucket trick for 2 days checking air pressure and flipping a few times a day and
they eventually sealed. just be patient.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

I was under the assumption these new tires were suppose to seal up with out the pinhole problems. Are the protections going to be the same way? I just ordered 8 Protections 2.4 from Starbike. I will report when I get them in.

Brenda


----------



## Strong like Bull (Jan 15, 2004)

Any help, tips or encouraging words are appreciated!!![/QUOTE]

Try sealing the pin holes from the outside with superglue. First identify where the holes are, deflate the tyre and then pinch the tyre at the pin hole locations so that the superglue can penetrate.

good luck.


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

After another night of "stan's / air" up the tires are sealing up way better then before. Only lost 5psi overnite. I agree with speedracerxx that you just need to be patient. Also tilting the tire at an angle would help the sealant get to the edge of the sidewall too. Will see how the tires perform tomorrow


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

So for running tubeless, it seems from what I have read the Racesport which is "tubeless ready" is really not great for running tubeless (or at least has its shortcomings). The Protection might be better as far as sidewall leakage, but are not "tubeless ready". So does the tubeless ready bead really make a difference? Is the Protection version the better way to go? Maybe I should just stick with Schwalbe Snakeskin tires though while expensive worked great tubeless and now have the tubeless ready bead (but I am really intrigued by the XKings).


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

For what it's worth, after fussing with my XK 2.4 RS's indoors, I finally got around to a real off-road ride with them, and I think that's what they were waiting for.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

Race King SuperSonic 2.2, Racing Ralph EVO 2.25, *X-King Protection 2.4*, Rocket Ron EVO 2.25, Mountain King Protection 2.2

i didn't notice that our protection's were not tr - i was able to inflate them with just a floor pump & lots of suds

one tire did have a small pin hole that suddenly opened up at 35psi & then rapidly deflated - sticking a small square of electrical tape over the hole + angling the tire so the slime pro pooled over it sorted it out in about half an hour or so - but left it overnight to be certain

good luck!


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Thanks for the pic culturesponge! Looks like the Rocket Ron 2.25 is pretty similar in width as the X King 2.4?


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Just took the 2.2 RaceSports out for the first ride today on a 20miles trail (hardpack / some rocky, technical sections). They held up air pretty good, I had almost zero lost in pressure during the ride (checked 4, 5 times).

Traction wise they are decent, but I had to play with the tire pressure, in my case they work at best in between 25-28psi. They are definitely skinner then the Rocket Ron 2.25 USTs I had before. From the ride, they do roll as fast if not faster then the Rons... but don't grip as good especially on rocky sections (still breaking in maybe?).

I'll put on the 2.4s and give them a shot. I should be fine running them on the Mavic SLRs (17mm width)?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

X-King 2.2 RS on DT Swiss XRC330 rims. they're a full 4mm narrower than the Race King 2.2 SS on the same rim. The X-King is also 15gms heavier at 495gms than the RK 2.2 at 480gms.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

rockyuphill said:


> X-King 2.2 RS on DT Swiss XRC330 rims. they're a full 4mm narrower than the Race King 2.2 SS on the same rim. The X-King is also 15gms heavier at 495gms than the RK 2.2 at 480gms.


Thanks *rockyuphill*  I can't deny feeling a bit of the weight of my XK 2.4 RS, and was debating picking up 2.2s. But I also noticed there's a RaceSport version of the RaceKing 2.2 coming out soon. Claimed weight 500 grams. I could give up some knobbyness if it means losing 80 grams a tire without losing much air volume.

Orrrr.... the Rocket Ron 2.25 Pacestar? They're supposed to be around their claimed weight, tubeless-ready, and now I'm wondering how wide they are in reality, too.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've just had a wet loop or two through very wet forest floor trails, and the X-King 2.4's are not a full on replacement for Mountain King 2.4's when the ground is really wet and saturated forest floor humus (like thin black oatmeal in the boggy bits). The extra knobbiness of the MK's would have been handy today.


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Going to sell my new / never mounted 2.4 if anyone interested

http://classifieds.mtbr.com/showproduct.php?product=60121


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

I saw the retail RaceKing 2.2 Racesport yesterday at my local shop :thumbsup:


----------



## cddaraa (Oct 19, 2009)

madskatingcow said:


> I saw the retail RaceKing 2.2 Racesport yesterday at my local shop :thumbsup:


finally!!!
So the stock is coming 
What held you and didnt bought?


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

i have a 2.2 up for a swap..


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

Got a XKing 2.4 RS last week, and I finally had the chance to mount it up to my backup wheel, which is a Crossmax ST. 

This was my first experience with tubeless ready, though I've used the following Conti tires on UST rims with no sealant: 2 MK 2.2 UST, 3 MK 2.4 UST, 1 RK 2.2 UST. 

First attempt to was to try to air up the tire as I had with my UST tires: no sealant, no pre-seating. I did clean and scrub the inside of the tire with Dawn dish soap, to remove any mold release agent from the tire. I thought that this would would help the sealant to stick to the sidewalls, as the inside of these tires is very, very slick from the factory.

With this method, it would not seat, even with the compressor. Second attempt was to mount with a tube to get the bead seated. Both sides had a nice audible pop. I let it sit for about an hour, carefully took the tube out (keeping one bead full mounted), and reinstalled with 2 scoops of Stans after using a toothbrush to brush some soap suds around the second bead. It inflated with no problems, using the compressor (did not try the floor pump).

I had to really work the final portion of the bead to get it fully seated, as it was a little lower on the rim. After the shake shake, I put it on its side, and there was no fanfare. One or two pinholes were sealed up quickly. Kept it at 35 psi or so overnight, and it did not lose much air by morning. This tire has great volume and appears to be very well made. Better quality than the non-German UST Contis that I've been using. The volume is great; larger than the 2.4MK UST. 

Took it out for a ride, and let a little air out before leaving the car. Unfortunately, I did not have a gauge, so I just used the hand feel method to get the pressure similar to my other UST tubeless tires, which I normally run at 28f and 31r for my 200lbs. I had let out a little too much air, so after riding the first mile, I put in a bit more with my hand pump. 

One thing that I determined is that with the very lightweight casing, this tire seems to be more sensitive to pressure than any tire I've ever ridden. Too little, and it squirms under climbing torque and heavy cornering. Too much, and it feels a big harsher over the small bumps. This is likely exacerbated by the relatively narrow rim I'm using. Again, the "just right" window seems very small. I'm still trying to find the sweet spot, as I really want to like the tire. Someone mentioned that the tire will protest when it is too low, which I experienced as well. It does make a bit of a crunching noise when pedaling with a pressure too low. 

The tire climbs and brakes well, though set it up too soft, and it will feel like it is sapping your power. Braking and cornering are both good. Better edging than the RK 2.2, due to the side knobs (not quite as fast pedaling, though). 

Over the course of a 4 hour ride, which had some aggressive climbing and descending, I had to add air a few times. One of the small descents abraded the sidewall (either due to a giant pine cone or rock), some Stans came out and eventually sealed the scrape that caused the pinhole. On the final descent, I had one scary moment when the rear wheel cased a 6" tall berm that was 45 degrees from my direction of travel. Apparently, the air pressure was still too low, and it felt like the tire wanted to fold and drive off of the rim. I stopped and put in yet a little more air. 

I finished the ride without fanfare. Back home, the tire had become very soft after sitting for a few hours. More air + another shake shake, and it has been holding fine a day later, though I've not ridden it since. 

Note that on the front, I had mounted a brand new Neo-Moto, converted to tubeless via the same method above, and it did not give me a single issue. It is mounted on the front and it is a heaver tire, so take that for what it's worth. 

I've attached a few photos of the tires I mention above.

-D


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Diesel~ said:


> Got a XKing 2.4 RS last week, and I finally had the chance to mount it up to my backup wheel, which is a Crossmax ST.
> 
> This was my first experience with tubeless ready, though I've used the following Conti tires on UST rims with no sealant: 2 MK 2.2 UST, 3 MK 2.4 UST, 1 RK 2.2 UST.
> 
> ...


Do you think the Protection version with burlier casing might have worked better as far as the "just right" window?


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

durkind said:


> Do you think the Protection version with burlier casing might have worked better as far as the "just right" window?


I believe so; in fact, my preference would be to run the Protection, if it were available with the UST bead. Coming from a full UST setup, I don't want to deal with tires burping or peeling off of the rim. It would be interesting to eyeball both versions in person. For all I know, they may be the same, even if they don't call out the Protection as having this feature.

Perhaps someone else can confirm?

-D


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Diesel~ said:


> I believe so; in fact, my preference would be to run the Protection, if it were available with the UST bead. Coming from a full UST setup, I don't want to deal with tires burping or peeling off of the rim. It would be interesting to eyeball both versions in person. For all I know, they may be the same, even if they don't call out the Protection as having this feature.
> 
> Perhaps someone else can confirm?
> 
> -D


Being a neophyte to tubeless, so anyone else out there with more experience, which is more important--stouter sidewalls (Protection version) or UST type bead (RaceSport Version)? Mounting on Stans 355 rims.


----------



## iRoNeTiK (Feb 22, 2007)

I'm running Kenda Nevegal 2.1 Front and 2.1 SB8 Rear with tubes on ZTR Alpines (newer Olympic rims). The size of these tires seem good to me but I'm up for looking into another good F/R combo (grip in front, fast rolling rear).

Would 2.4XK RS and 2.2RK SS be equilvalent size? Or would 2.2XK and 2.0 RK be better? I might go tubeless with this, but not sure yet


----------



## jasper9 (Jan 19, 2009)

I've seen these 26" trickling into US online shops lately. Bike Tires Direct has some if anyone is looking.


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

iRoNeTiK said:


> I'm running Kenda Nevegal 2.1 Front and 2.1 SB8 Rear with tubes on ZTR Alpines (newer Olympic rims). The size of these tires seem good to me but I'm up for looking into another good F/R combo (grip in front, fast rolling rear).
> 
> Would 2.4XK RS and 2.2RK SS be equilvalent size? Or would 2.2XK and 2.0 RK be better? I might go tubeless with this, but not sure yet


Go with 2.4XK RS and 2.2RK SS.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

mechBgon said:


> For what it's worth, after fussing with my XK 2.4 RS's indoors, I finally got around to a real off-road ride with them, and I think that's what they were waiting for.


Update: I put my second set of XK 2.4 RS's on my other set of wheels with 60ml of Slime Pro per tire. They were seeping down pretty badly, especially the front tire.

I finally got a chance to take them for a ride, thinking "this'll do it," but they began leaking so fast it was audible when I stopped to look at my drivetrain for a minute. Yikes. I decided to bail instead of spending an after-dark ride pumping my tires up every 10 minutes.

Call me a noOb, but when I buy a tire that's "tubeless-ready," from a company like Conti, I expect it to be, like, basically tubeless-ready. Add sealant, add air, and ride, instead of scouring the Interwebs for arcane methods of making a balky tire seal.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

mechBgon said:


> Update: I put my second set of XK 2.4 RS's on my other set of wheels with 60ml of Slime Pro per tire. They were seeping down pretty badly, especially the front tire.
> 
> I finally got a chance to take them for a ride, thinking "this'll do it," but they began leaking so fast it was audible when I stopped to look at my drivetrain for a minute. Yikes. I decided to bail instead of spending an after-dark ride pumping my tires up every 10 minutes.
> 
> Call me a noOb, but when I buy a tire that's "tubeless-ready," from a company like Conti, I expect it to be, like, basically tubeless-ready. Add sealant, add air, and ride, instead of scouring the Interwebs for arcane methods of making a balky tire seal.


sounds like mine.. im taking it off and giving it away.. my neighbor runs tubes so he will be fine with it.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

cddaraa said:


> finally!!!
> So the stock is coming
> What held you and didnt bought?


Inflammation of the popliteus muscle at the back of my right knee has already kept me off the bike for four months. Visited 6 specialists, so far nothing has worked. At this moment, I'm really desperate


----------



## jasper9 (Jan 19, 2009)

did you try the 26" ust version? conti's website doesnt say anything about the racesport version being tubeless ready that i see?


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

jasper9 said:


> did you try the 26" ust version? conti's website doesnt say anything about the racesport version being tubeless ready that i see?


Website sure does say Racesport is tubeles ready:

RaceSport technology, developed in close cooperation with professional mountain bikers, continues to use a consistent light construction, but offers significantly more puncture protection enabling more universal applications. The optimised carcass guarantees necessary protection. The special UST bead offers the option of Tubeless Ready use in addition to conventional assembly. For prevention, thanks to the tub in particular with UST rims, only a small amount of sealant is necessary. This improves the rolling properties and reduces weight.


----------



## jasper9 (Jan 19, 2009)

All I'm saying is the Racesport and UST are two different versions. No where here does it say the non-ust are tubeless compatible: http://www.conti-online.com/generat...le/themes/mtb/cc_marathon/XKing/XKing_en.html


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

jasper9 said:


> No where here does it say the non-ust are tubeless compatible: http://www.conti-online.com/generat...le/themes/mtb/cc_marathon/XKing/XKing_en.html


it's stated here: http://www.conti-online.com/generat.../bicycle/general/innovation/racesport_en.html


----------



## jasper9 (Jan 19, 2009)

good catch, i'm really curious now...


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

jasper9 said:


> tubeless compatible: ]


I am not really sure what the difference between Tubeless Compatible (what you say) and Tubeles Ready (what Conti says)?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I've been running a 2.4 SS Mountain King up front with a 2.2 SS Race King rear on my bike, both set up tubeless. My only complaint is mid-summer, when the trails here get super dry and loose, the MK front will wash out unexpectedly when leaned over. I suspect this is due to the long side knobs folding under. Has anyone gotten any experience with the X-King on dry, loose surfaces yet? My main reason for wanting to get a 2.4 RS X-King would be to fix that problem of my MK. I'd still use the MK when our trails are damp, but I'd like to have more secure grip during the hot months. I still intend on using the RK in the back. Thanks.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=653404&page=3


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks for that, GVS! I guess I missed that in the 5 pages.


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

I got a set and have gotten the front tire setup tubeless without much hassle. I had to use an air compressor to get the bead seated and it really lost air quickly but after the shake, rattle, and roll it sealed up easily. Hasn't lost air in a over a week and I haven't even been able to ride it yet. Still waiting on my back CK to finish being built up and will then see how the back tire does. Hopefully as smooth as the front. :fingerscrossed:

Running 2.4 race sport on crest rims.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Just got my order in from Starbike. I ordered 8 Protections in 26x2.4. I started opening the boxes and realized some of them had the "flag" pattern and some didn't. 5 of them had no flag pattern and said "Racesport" on the side. I then checked the part numbers on the sides of the tires, they were all the same, as were the boxes they came in. For fun, I weighed them, and they all came in at 620 or 630, so they can't be Racesports! Crazy!! I contacted starbike and told them what I got. 

Can someone with a "Racesport" 2.4 please tell me what the part number is on the side of your tire? Mine all say 60-559. I am not sure if I would be able to tell the difference between 3 or 4 ply, except for the weight thing. We shall see what happens.

Brenda


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

60-559 isn't a part number, it's the size, 60 mm width, 559 radius or something silly !!


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Turveyd said:


> 60-559 isn't a part number, it's the size, 60 mm width, 559 radius or something silly !!


559 is the real diameter of a 26" wheel (they're not 26") in millimeters - the ETRTO size. And as already mentioned, 60 is the width of the tire, so this won't tell you if it is Racesport or not.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

I also ordered and received a set of 2.4 Protections from starbike. Both boxes are marked X-King 2.4 "Pro Tection". Both tires have the flag pattern and do not say "raceport" anywhere. I'm not sure I would rely on the weight to determine if they are protections are not. I also have a set of Trail Kings (TK 2.2) and both of those tires also have the flag pattern exactly like the X-Kings. Would be interested to know what starbike comes back with....


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

The ones that say racesport are just that. The ones that have checkers on the side are protections they do not say racesport. the weight thing is strange my racesport 2.4s were 540 to 560 grams


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

My 2.4 racesports are 569 and 573 respectively. 630 seems really high for the RS.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

OK, more interesting info. The 3 w/the flags that say Protection on them have another number on the side of them. 207751, they all weigh 620/630. There are 4 of them that say Racesport on them, with no flags and their number is 208859, they weigh 620/630. 

Then there is ONE that says Racesport on the side, no flags, and it's number is 208858. It weighs 580. It also looks different on the inside, like I can see the "steel belts" for lack of a better term. It also feels flimsier then the others. 

Does anyone have numbers like these on the sides of their tires? It it the last number near where the max inflate is. Furthest to the right of the info line.

I did get two of the "Protections" mounted up tonite. They would NOT mount up without first putting in a tube, then just soap, then the stans. They don't seem to leak like a sieve. We shall see.


Brenda


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

my racesports are 208858


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

speedracerxx said:


> my racesports are 208858


That's the number both mine have.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

motochick said:


> I did get two of the "Protections" mounted up tonite. They would NOT mount up without first putting in a tube, then just soap, then the stans. They don't seem to leak like a sieve. We shall see.
> 
> Brenda


did the beads look similar to the one confirmed Raceport that you have? Also, did they "pop" onto the rim? Curious because for the trouble with these things (Raceports), it might be better to just get the Protections.

I wonder if either your heavy Racesports are basically Protections that never got the flag mold, or if the quality control is going south over there in Contiland.

My Racesport 2.4's are both 208858 as well. They weighed in the 560's and 570's if I remember right.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

mechBgon said:


> But I also noticed there's a RaceSport version of the RaceKing 2.2 coming out soon. Claimed weight 500 grams.


Sounds good on paper or on Conti's site, but with all of the hype that swirled around these X-kings I am definitely not going to hold my breathe.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

The 2 Protections I mounted did POP on, all 3 times I mounted them. First tube, then soap only, then Stans. They were both flat this morning. I looked at the beads and they all look the same to me. I then looked at the bead on my ust trail kings and they look different. They look more square, but they have been mounted on my bike for 6 months so I am not sure if that would distort them.

Starbike did say they have had some Protections come thru w/out the flags. They asked me to weigh them. I wrote them back after noticing the number differences and the weight difference of the one. 

Does anyone with Protections have a number and does yours have the flags or not?

Brenda


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

Got my second 2.4 RS mounted last night and it too mounted without a problem. I did have to use a compressor but after the shakeing with stan's it hasn't lost air over night. I was really worried about getting them setup tubeless after some of the stories on here but mine have been trouble free.


----------



## xckonakeith (Feb 10, 2006)

*No problems here*

Hi folks, I received my X-king Racesports yesterday in the mail (almost 3 week wait)

I mounted them up last night on my Custom Trance X - 2.4 Front, 2.2 Rear

They both took and held air with no problems - using a floor pump, some soapy water and 2 and 1.5 scoops of Stans respectively. There were two pinholes in the 2.2 and one in the 2.4 but they sealed up quickly. Probably the easiest set of tires to set up tubeless I have ever done.

Checked them this morning and both tires are holding air. No discernible air loss (no time to check with a gauge before I left the house for work).

The 2.4s were quite big and the 2.2s were on the small side. Without measuring, the former was bigger than my RK 2.2 SS and the latter was smaller. When things get dry in the summer I might put the RK.2.2 SS on the back and the x-King 2.2 on the front. We shall see.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Overall, I am quite happy so far. The real test though, with all tires, is not whether they are easy to set-up, but rather how they perform on the trail.

Cheers,

Keith


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

I ditched my X-Kings 2.2 RS a few days ago and switched back to my favourite combo Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25 / Rocket Ron 2.25, both PaceStar 2011 tubeless ready.

The X-Kings 2.2 weren't really my thing :

a) not enough volume, resulting in less comfort compared to the Schwalbe's. Probably better with the 2.4, but those are too heavy.
b) casing is quite stiff. Instead of taking the shape of the objects like stone's and roots, they tend to bounce / slip off.
c) tires don't really like wet leaves
d) quite a lot of pinholes in the casings - the Schwalbe's didn't loose one single drop of sealant.

Everybody probably has it's favourite tires :thumbsup:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I'm finding a similar thing with the X-King 2.2's, the smaller 50mm wide carcass needs more air to prevent hitting the rim and that really makes them less compliant than the Race King 2.2 SS, so they aren't as good over surfaces that need the tire to conform to the root/rock shapes, and I think there may be some more knob squirm than the RK's that does seem to promote getting deflected from your chosen path when the knobs hit the edges of roots or rocks. 

And they aren't near as comfy on a hardtail with the smaller volume. Once drier conditions come back I'll be running the RK 2.2 SS on the hardtail for sure. 

On trails that are smoother and loamy, the X-Kings would likely be better. 

I'd like an X-king 2.3 that had a volume more similar to the RK 2.2.


----------



## Stryder75 (Feb 2, 2010)

I would just like to have my XKing 2.2's just hold air when I ride. I am still having problems with them holding air during riding. The beads seal great each time and they have no problem holding air throughout the night and while the bike hangs on the storage rack. But, as soon as I hit the trail, I have problems. Just last week I was in a race (somewhere around 15th) and was on my last lap pushing hard. I went into turn 2 on the last lap (bermed corner) and wouldn't you know it, front tire rolls on the rim and down I go, hard. When I finally made it up and started off again the front tire was almost flat. I had started the race with 28-30 PSI freashly pumped and when I checked the tire back at the car after finishing the race it was 10-12 PSI and the bead was frimly sealed and seated to the rim.
I had been having the same issue with the rear a month before and ended up having to tube it because I was tired of fooling around with it and not being able to enjoy the rides. Now the front is tubed. But, after the race I re-aired the tire and did a bathtub check, and the sidewalls were bubbling like crazy. This is with 2.5 scopes of stan's too.

So, I have decided to just run them tubed until the weather dries out more and then switch to Schwalbe RR's or Conti RK (hoping these seal better than the XK). Never had the issue with my previous Kenda's.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

madskatingcow said:


> I ditched my X-Kings 2.2 RS a few days ago and switched back to my favourite combo Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25 / Rocket Ron 2.25, both PaceStar 2011 tubeless ready.
> 
> The X-Kings 2.2 weren't really my thing :
> 
> ...


And the Pacestar edge compound feels softer than x-king black chilli.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

I got to ride my Protection 2.4's yesterday and they worked great. No leaking, no burbs, no problems. They are much lighter then the UST trail kings I was coming from, not enough time on them as of right now to compare, but I rode just fine on them.

So does anyone have any Protections that can post some part numbers for me? I am still trying to figure out what I have as far as the non flagged ones I received.

Brenda


----------



## loamshreder (Nov 13, 2007)

*XKing 2.4 protection #*

207750 on mine.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

motochick said:


> I got to ride my Protection 2.4's yesterday and they worked great. No leaking, no burbs, no problems. They are much lighter then the UST trail kings I was coming from, not enough time on them as of right now to compare, but I rode just fine on them.
> 
> So does anyone have any Protections that can post some part numbers for me? I am still trying to figure out what I have as far as the non flagged ones I received.
> 
> Brenda


how much sealant did you put in your Protections? I seriously wonder if this is a better way to go. The Racesports just aren't delivering. Real bummer.

Curious to know why your tires are coming through with different numbers than the others...207751 vs. 750 and 208859 vs. 858. Wonder if they are making running changes to the tires since they aren't really delivering?


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

I used 2 scoops. Had a serious time trying to just get the bead on. Gave up and used a tube to get it seated, took out tube, reseated w/no problem. It did not hold air the first night, so I pumped it back up to 40, shook, rode it 3 miles, and it has held ever since. That was 3 days ago. Today will be my second ride on the tires on trails I know well.

I am still trying to figure out why my tires are different and what it is I actually have. I only heard back from Starbike the one time and nothing since. I have another bike that needs tires but since I only have 1 with the flags, I cannot take a chance of putting on the others until I know what they are. Bummer for me.

Brenda


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

motochick said:


> I used 2 scoops. Had a serious time trying to just get the bead on. Gave up and used a tube to get it seated, took out tube, reseated w/no problem. It did not hold air the first night, so I pumped it back up to 40, shook, rode it 3 miles, and it has held ever since. That was 3 days ago. Today will be my second ride on the tires on trails I know well.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out why my tires are different and what it is I actually have. I only heard back from Starbike the one time and nothing since. I have another bike that needs tires but since I only have 1 with the flags, I cannot take a chance of putting on the others until I know what they are. Bummer for me.
> 
> Brenda


Yeah, definitely a bummer. Have you contacted Conti? Wonder what they'll say.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

I haven't, but if I don't hear back from starbike, I may have to. I got to do a real nice ride on them today and compare them with my UST trail kings. They seem to do everything the trail kings do. They go up and down and turn just fine. I rode rocky, hardpack, sandy, slickrock, they performed very well in all the conditions today. They do seem to roll faster then the UST's, but then again, maybe it was the weight loss!  

Brenda


----------



## nightrod (Jan 16, 2008)

*X-king 2.2 2011 quality problem*

Conti refuse to respond to emails.

Am I the only one who got the lousy quality?


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

So far, all these reject Conti's have been from Europe, right? I wonder if they will sort it out by the time Highway2 starts importing them.


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

Highway 2 already has some, that is where i got mine from.


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

beanbag said:


> So far, all these reject Conti's have been from Europe, right? I wonder if they will sort it out by the time Highway2 starts importing them.


I got mine from biketiresdirect.com. Jensonusa.com has them now and so does Competitive Cyclist. Course mine haven't had any problems.

Wow on the pics nightrod! Mine didn't do that at all when I mounted mine. I don't think I had any pin holes in my 2 tires. Just sealing the bead was where I had my initial air leakage and after the shaking they held air without a problem.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

nightrod said:


> Conti refuse to respond to emails.
> 
> Am I the only one who got the lousy quality?


I submitted feedback at http://www.conti-online.com/generat...tal/bicycle/functions/contact/contact_en.html and was eventually contacted by Highway 2 themselves. If you have problems, I suggest sending *constructive*, informative feedback (as opposed to a rant) telling them what's up, so they get it on their radar and get it fixed.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

they responded quickly and efficiently to my emails!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

facelessfools said:


> they responded quickly and efficiently to my emails!


And...?


----------



## Evan55 (Jul 23, 2009)

well, scratching this tire off the list. I was really looking forward to it too.

looks like Schwable will get my business, you screwed this one up Conti.


----------



## Flboy (Mar 18, 2008)

Evan55 said:


> well, scratching this tire off the list. I was really looking forward to it too.
> 
> looks like Schwable will get my business, you screwed this one up Conti.


I agree 100%!!!


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

jochribs said:


> And...?


i was so tired of my xking they replaced it.

my x king saw more then 10 scoops of stan's and over 100 miles and still couldn't hold air over night.

they told me the first few xkings due to their extreamly low weight dont seem to offer the "tubeless ready" that customers bought them for.


----------



## facelessfools (Aug 30, 2008)

Evan55 said:


> well, scratching this tire off the list. I was really looking forward to it too.
> 
> looks like Schwable will get my business, you screwed this one up Conti.


conti. worked well with me on this tire. so ill continue to run a raceking in the rear of my bike


----------



## macming (Oct 31, 2004)

Does anyone run a set of 2.4s on Mavic 819s? I'm wondering if the rim will handle the tire size properly.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

macming said:


> Does anyone run a set of 2.4s on Mavic 819s? I'm wondering if the rim will handle the tire size properly.


Well, tonight I ran my 2.4's off-roading and on streets on my utility mountain bike (with tubes), which has rims in that general width range. They seemed OK to me, although I was running 35-40psi or so. Certainly a welcome change from the 1100-gram studded tires!


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

I have... Well on a crossmax ST which is the same inner wheel width as the 819. So far so good. I installed one on the SLR but decided to take it off, dont wanna take the risk of rolling the tire off.


----------



## speedracerxx (Dec 13, 2010)

I have been running 2.4 racesport x-king on 819 since early January .they are set up tubeless, I ride at rays mtb 3 times a week and have no problems at all hold air fine don't burp air.I am 6'6" 275 lbs and run them at 30 to 35 lbs.


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

macming said:


> Does anyone run a set of 2.4s on Mavic 819s? I'm wondering if the rim will handle the tire size properly.


I'm running one on the rear on a Crossmax ST, which as far as I can tell from the Mavic site, has the same internal width (19mm) as the 819.

My experience has been mixed, and I'm not sure if it is related to the rim width or the lightweight casing. I've found that the tire is VERY sensitive to pressure. At 210lb with gear, I usually run about 30-31psi in the rear on a 2.4 Mountain King UST (lower volume than the X-king 2.4), and that tire performs great. The X-king 2.4 seems to need at least 34-35 psi in order not to feel like it is squirming on the rim. I've had a few disconcerting incidents, when hitting water bars that are 45 degrees to the direction of travel. It feels like the tire wants to squirm or drive off of the rim, making control difficult. It can also feel like the tire is deforming under high torque when climbing, sapping energy. Upping the PSI makes this feeling when climbing go away.

Having said that, there have been no burps, and the UST bead/rim combo seems to lock as well as a full UST tire/UST rim combo.

I did not have any problems getting it to initially seal or hold air overnight with 2 scoops of Stans. I have had some issues with it losing 5-10 psi over the course of the ride, with no obvious pinholes or leaks other than the 2 small pinholes that were sealed during the initial setup.

Other notes: The tire really grips and rolls well. The volume is great and provides great rim protection.

I want to like the tire, but the jury is still out for me. I'd like to try the 2.4 UST, though it's too bad that it probably won't have the black chili compound.

-D


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

facelessfools said:


> i was so tired of my xking they replaced it.
> 
> my x king saw more then 10 scoops of stan's and over 100 miles and still couldn't hold air over night.
> 
> they told me the first few xkings due to their extreamly low weight dont seem to offer the "tubeless ready" that customers bought them for.


I think that's the least of what they should do considering this misleadingly marketed tire.

Consider this...they marketed this tire, and said in such marketing that this tire was to be intended to be used with sealant - that the tire was intended and made for this purpose. It has a UST type bead. No one is having any luck with these things. If anyone here believes that they (Continental) didn't know that these issues would ensue, then they have surely guzzled the kool-aid.

Frankly, I'm getting sick as s%#t of companies upping their marketing horseshit, AND their prices...while their quality and delivery of said marketing smoke-blowing continues to go down. And these tires were made in Germany, not at Cheng Shin.

And these tires are NOT extremely low weight. Whatever Continental.

I tell ya, if I decide that I want them to replace these tires, they are going to do it whether or not I kiss their asses.

Unbelievable.


----------



## RecceDG (Sep 4, 2010)

Dude, relax.

Building a tire is not the same as building something out of metal. there's a lot more cut & try and it takes a little while to get the process right.

You're dealing with a brand new model of a cutting edge racing tire. There are going to be bugs and hiccups with the early models - that's the price of being an early adopter.

I think you'll find that if you work with the supplier - and keep the nature of the game in mind - that you'll be a lot happier.

DG


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

jochribs said:


> I think that's the least of what they should do considering this misleadingly marketed tire.
> 
> Consider this...they marketed this tire, and said in such marketing that this tire was to be intended to be used with sealant - that the tire was intended and made for this purpose. It has a UST type bead. No one is having any luck with these things. If anyone here believes that they (Continental) didn't know that these issues would ensue, then they have surely guzzled the kool-aid.
> 
> ...


A lesson to those who did not read the whole thread before buying the tires. Early on there are posts about sidewalls not sealing.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

RecceDG said:


> Dude, relax.
> 
> Building a tire is not the same as building something out of metal. there's a lot more cut & try and it takes a little while to get the process right.
> 
> ...


"Dude relax"? Got off it man. Seriously, berry or grape? These tires do not work 'at all' in the way they were supposed to. I find your cut and try reasoning to be really weak. 
Based on that sort of thought process, we should think ourselves to be lucky that the tires don't completely separate while we are riding. I mean, what the hell would
prototypes and product testing be for? Fishing out the bugs etc. Is what testers and pros are for, BEFORE the product goes to market. Using the consumer as the tester for
your 'bright ideas' is suspect for two reasons right off the bat. One, once you figure out how to make your bright idea actually work, will it even resemble what you set out to
do? And two, you don't start selling a product immediately, when you know it isn't going to what people are buying it to do, just so you can start bringing in profit early.

But I appreciate your unsolicited setting straight of my opinion. Drink up brother.


----------



## RecceDG (Sep 4, 2010)

Or maybe, just maybe, I have some insight into how these things are made.

DG


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

Mine work exactly as advertised. I waited until they were available here in the US before I bought and both tires sealed up with out a problem and have held air for weeks with no leakage. So far a great set of tires.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

RecceDG said:


> You're dealing with a brand new model of a cutting edge racing tire. There are going to be bugs and hiccups with the early models - that's the price of being an early adopter.


Bugs can usually be fixed with a software update. You shouldn't release physically defective products. :nono:


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

gvs_nz said:


> A lesson to those who did not read the whole thread before buying the tires. Early on there are posts about sidewalls not sealing.


not trying to get into it with you gvs_nz, but you might want to know that I have had these tires since around the same time as you. I got them from starbike back in thanksgiving if I remember correctly.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

RecceDG said:


> Or maybe, just maybe, I have some insight into how these things are made.
> 
> DG


Maybe you do brother, maybe you do. And that's actually cool. I admire that. I don't however agree with the assertion that the way a thing is made should have an effect on whether risks are taken when bringing something to market. (whether they are possibly catastrophic in nature or along the lines of "oh yes, they will work, but just not in the way in which you intended to use them...so you just wasted $135. Sorry")

As I said, it's awesome for during this time frame for Pros and testers to be riding them and dealing with the issues. According to Muahdib, his are fine and he got his in the US, not from Starbike like most of us. If that is any window into things being worked out, then they surely could have sat on these tires for over the winter, reaffirming my opinion that you don't put out something early so that you can start making the money off of drueling customers before you have your a s s sown on straight. It's crooked. (no pun intended)

Look, my intial post yesterday that got this going was my opinion and that was all. Not meant to get into a pissing match, or to start disliking any fellows in here. So please take it for waht it's worth and don't use it as an opportunity to condescend to me and set me straight, because my opinion won't be bent.

Muahdib, and any others actually having luck....awesome guys/girls.  Did you by any chance weigh them?

J


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

Mine are 573 and 569 grams respectively.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

that's good Muahdib, looks like they can replace these with ones that work.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

jochribs said:


> not trying to get into it with you gvs_nz, but you might want to know that I have had these tires since around the same time as you. I got them from starbike back in thanksgiving if I remember correctly.


Good call. Sorry about that.

Seen so many repeat calls for sizing etc that's already been covered.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Muahdib said:


> Mine work exactly as advertised. I waited until they were available here in the US before I bought and both tires sealed up with out a problem and have held air for weeks with no leakage. So far a great set of tires.


Some got theirs early on from Europe that had no problems. Some do have problems some don't.Even though the European market doesn't have the tubelsss obsession that USA market has they should still be made to same std.
I suspect they spin an initial sealing membrane on mould and then the base tire layer. It may not be thick enough to allow for the operator variation when making the tires?





Schwalbe got it right but Conti didn't. They may be remedying it now by increasing the thickness of the sealing layer? Possibly didn't show up initially as they were not mass produced and the pro's testing them in Europe were using tubes.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I swapped the X-King 2.4's off in favour of the MK 2.4 SS's for the balance of the muddy season, holy moly what a difference in rolling resistance. The X-Kings are just a magnitude faster and quieter. The MK's are certainly better in directional control in squidgy mud, but roll _much_ slower. Now I'm really looking forward to having the trails dry out some so I can put the X-Kings back on.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Any way to tell the leaky version from the non-leaky version?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

All,
I just received my X-King 2.4 RaceSport today. Stats:

Weight: 567g
Flat width: 5-15/16" (151 mm)

For comparison:

Used, 2-yr-old, stretched Race King 2.2 Supersonic: 465g, 5-15/16" (151mm)
Used once, 4-mo-old Racing Ralph 2.25 Evo: 487g, 5-1/8" (130mm)

I'm excited about the size and tread pattern of this tire. It will be my front tire, with the Race King 2.2 SS on the rear. I'll repost when I get to ride my bike. Around here, that'll be freakin' May.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I thought I'd add my experience here.

I mounted my X-king 2.4 RS to an Easton Haven UST wheel this weekend. It mounted fairly easily, but I do have an air compressor and a Prestaflator to help with the initial bead popping. Based on the reports here and my experience in sealing up Race Kings and Mountain Kings in the past, I injected three scoops of Stan's into the setup.

Mine sealed extremely easily. I had maybe two visible sidewall bubbles, and one in the bead area. With some shake 'n bake, these sealed quickly. The three scoops was overkill by far on these tires - it would have been fine with two. The tire held air overnight - I can't use my gauge at the moment to check the pressure, but I would have ridden on it based on the pressure it has retained. This is in stark contast to the Supersonics I've sealed, which look like piles of foam bubbles after a few seconds when first inflated. If we weren't buried with snow and cold here, this tire was easily rideable today. I just checked it, and it's held solid all day today.

Using my tire volume approximator, this tire is only slightly smaller than the RaceKing 2.2 Supersonic, which is huge, and that's in the "just mounted" state. The tire will likely stretch out a bit over time; the Race King numbers are for a stretched tire. So if you like the volume of the RK, the new XK 2.4 seems to match it very closely. It's clearly larger than my MK2.4 SS.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

CTB said:


> I thought I'd add my experience here.
> 
> I mounted my X-king 2.4 RS to an Easton Haven UST wheel this weekend. It mounted fairly easily, but I do have an air compressor and a Prestaflator to help with the initial bead popping. Based on the reports here and my experience in sealing up Race Kings and Mountain Kings in the past, I injected three scoops of Stan's into the setup.
> 
> ...


Let us know if they hold after being ridden. I've resorted to using tubes in mine.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Why not try another tire sealant? I've had succes with Eclipse, and even better : NoZisch, the new tire sealant by Christoph Sauser. Best I have ever used. Instead of crystals, it uses micro- fibres to plug the holes.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

mechBgon said:


> Let us know if they hold after being ridden. I've resorted to using tubes in mine.


+1

Not to be a downer CTB, but don't get your hopes up yet. I yanked mine yesterday and put PATCHED Panaracer Greenlite tubes in mine. They are holding air better than these tires. That says something.

When I yanked mine and cleaned them out for the tubes, they had a consistent layer of sealant on the entire inside of the tire. Up the side walls. There was though, always a shiny residue on the outside of the tires along the side wall/bead junction, like a leaking perforation.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Jochribs and mechBgon, did you guys have initial success with them holding air (i.e. when you first put them together, not on the bike), or were you always fighting leakage? Mine sealed up as easily as my Kendas and WTBs in the past on the initial mount, unlike the disasters that were my Race King and Mountain King (both of which I succeeded in sealing and rode for 1.5 years with no real issues). Unfortunately, it'll be MONTHS before I can ride this tire. We're still under snow, and we're going to have mud probably until at least mid May here.  This tire is not going to be my mud choice, that's for sure. I'll use one of my other treads until we get good conditions here.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

CTB said:


> Jochribs and mechBgon, did you guys have initial success with them holding air (i.e. when you first put them together, not on the bike), or were you always fighting leakage? Mine sealed up as easily as my Kendas and WTBs in the past on the initial mount, unlike the disasters that were my Race King and Mountain King (both of which I succeeded in sealing and rode for 1.5 years with no real issues). Unfortunately, it'll be MONTHS before I can ride this tire. We're still under snow, and we're going to have mud probably until at least mid May here.  This tire is not going to be my mud choice, that's for sure. I'll use one of my other treads until we get good conditions here.


I first tried CaffeLatex. Even with that stuff, I thought they did seal up, but then I rode them. Started at 30psi on ride, and after about 20 minutes, they were flopping around turns. Luckily, my wife and I had driven to the spot that day. I even remember posting on here saying that I had success when first mounting them. Way premature.

Next, I put Stans in. While this would seal up the initial hisses that would spring up during the mounting process better than the CL would, it was the same thing. They just would not hold air. Not while riding. Sitting in the bike room, sure. Seemed like a sure bet. A real PITA is more like it though.

My feeling is it's the sidewall/bead area junction. You can get that to seal up doing the mounting process, but once you're riding and the tire is flexing and conforming to the ground/rocks etc., the sealant that you had painstakingly gotten to that area while you were at home, gets flexed off to some extent, and due to the nature of the wheels movement and centripital force, the fresh sealant doesn't do a thing for that while you are riding. The result is you get floppy tire syndrome.

Who knows though, you may have gotten a good set. Some on here have had luck. The tires feel great while there is air in them. Roll well, and actually haven't packed up with mud for me. Give em a shot before you rule them out for that. My Greenlites feel pretty good in them, very supple, which is why I always liked those tubes. They are absolutely stretched to their max in these 2.4's though. I'll see how that goes over the long haul. So far it's better than 'trying' to run them tubeless.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

For some reason I had gotten locked out of the forum for a sec. I wanted to edit my post, but you already answered what I was going to ask (which sealant did you use). MechBgon had mentioned Slime Pro in his post, I believe, and now you answered what you used. Cool, thanks. I used Stan's on all my tires so far. I'm now out and trying to decide what kind to try next.

Oh, one other thing - what rims are you using? My Havens are UST profile; I'm hoping that helps. The bead on the XK was noticably different from my RK's and MK's.

I'm surprised that the XK did ok in mud. It doesn't look like it would grip. I guess it's fairly open, so not packing up is winning half the battle, tho. I know when I get caught out in mud, my Race King becomes useless in one revolution of the tire.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Have you guys tried to clean the tires inside and at the beads with some rubbing alcohol to remove the release agent? It may prevent the sealant from sticking well to the rubber.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

That's a good idea. I had done that with my original Race Kings, though they were still a disaster. I meant to do that on the XK but ended up forgetting. Definitely something to do if you remember...


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

CTB said:


> For some reason I had gotten locked out of the forum for a sec. I wanted to edit my post, but you already answered what I was going to ask (which sealant did you use). MechBgon had mentioned Slime Pro in his post, I believe, and now you answered what you used. Cool, thanks. I used Stan's on all my tires so far. I'm now out and trying to decide what kind to try next.
> 
> Oh, one other thing - what rims are you using? My Havens are UST profile; I'm hoping that helps. The bead on the XK was noticably different from my RK's and MK's.
> 
> I'm surprised that the XK did ok in mud. It doesn't look like it would grip. I guess it's fairly open, so not packing up is winning half the battle, tho. I know when I get caught out in mud, my Race King becomes useless in one revolution of the tire.


No problem CTB, glad I can be of help. I am/was using Bontrager RXL's with the Bontrager rim strip. No issue there at all. I think that the rim strips basically make the wheels UST, but don't quote me on that. With your Havens the tires beads out to be perfect. I'll double check, but the understanding that I had was that the Racesports use a UST bead profile. I'll check that and report back.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah, it's a UST bead...

http://www.conti-online.com/generat.../bicycle/general/innovation/racesport_en.html


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Diesel~ said:


> Got a XKing 2.4 RS last week, and I finally had the chance to mount it up to my backup wheel, which is a Crossmax ST.
> 
> This was my first experience with tubeless ready, though I've used the following Conti tires on UST rims with no sealant: 2 MK 2.2 UST, 3 MK 2.4 UST, 1 RK 2.2 UST.
> 
> ...


crossmax st rims are only 19 mm width. they are too narrow for 2.4 tyres. you can see in your own picture that it's only 57 mm width instead of ~60 mm. It could be one of the reasons of that swimming sence with low preasure.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

madskatingcow said:


> Why not try another tire sealant? I've had succes with Eclipse, and even better : NoZisch, the new tire sealant by Christoph Sauser. Best I have ever used. Instead of crystals, it uses micro- fibres to plug the holes.


Now that's a thought. Since the beads seal so well on the new Pacestar Schwalbes and Conti Racesports that are sealing I might try a non Latex long term[ 2 year] UST puncture sealant like Geax Tubeless Therapy Tyre Sealant. If it works ,no more mess for the life of the tire. Yeh.


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Just a rough idea for those of you who wanna compare the 2 sizes (2.2 and 2.4, both are the RaceSport version at 35psi). The 2.2 was mounted on a Mavic Crossmax SLR and the 2.4 was on a Mavic Crossmax ST. The difference in air volume / size are pretty noticeable.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

So, what does all this mean... I was excited to get RS X-Kings and run them tubeless as they are flexible enough to handle most of my riding, normally I change tires quite often, but was willing to give tubeless a try because of the X-Kings and run them for a few months... 

I guess we need more data about the latest batches, perhaps the problem is more-or-less fixed? Or perhaps not, and we need info from Conti on when the quality can go up a bit? Can we get a statement from them that if the batch number is above xyz or something then they should be much improved?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

As an update, mine sat for a week in my basement (no riding here). Today I was able to put a gauge on it, but I fiddle-fingered it and let some psi out. It was at about 22 psi; last week I had inflated it to 32 psi when I sealed up the tire. It was probably at 24 psi before I screwed up putting the gauge on (I let a lot of air out), so 8 psi over a week is pretty much as good as my Race Kings ever got with sealant. If the tire are able to keep this up after riding them, I'll be happy.

As shown above, the 2.4 is a big tire, nearly the same size as the 2.2 Race King SS. It dwarfs my 2.4 Mountain King SS, yet is lighter. Large size, large volume, not bad weight. I hope it grips well for me, as I like everything so far.


----------



## krandrus (Aug 2, 2007)

*Things are changing*

After reading so many horror stories I was aprehensive to mount the 2.4 race sports that I had received lately. I mounted them today on Stan's Arch rims tubeless and I was pleasantly surprised.

Tires went on the rim without levers. Probably the loosest fit I have experienced for tubeless or tubeless ready tires (experience with specialized, wtb, maxis, schwalbe). Tires were moderately easy to air up with stan's and a small compresser. No sidewall leaks at all, small amount of sealant leaking from the bead area. Holding pressure very well after 4 hours.

Due to snow it will be a while until I can ride these, but so far this process has been as smooth as any other new tire using the stan's system. I don't have a scale, but I would be surprised if these tires are as light as stated, it appears that the sidewall rubber has been beefed up more than I would expect.

Looking forward to riding them, kind of wish that I had bought a 2.2 for the rear as the 2.4 looks very big for a rear tire.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Can anybody with a non-leaky Racesport tell us how thick the sidewall feels, compared to a Supersonic or Protection? I think some of the earlier leaky ones had sidewalls that felt almost as thin as Supersonics, if I recall correctly.

Also, I emailed Highway 2 about the X-kings and what should we do if we get a leaky one. The guy there told me not to buy them yet.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

And another update. After putting the pressure back up to 32 yesterday, my tire did the "Race King" random deflate overnight. Hee hee...yeah, this is gonna be just like the Race King. I conquered one of those, so hopefully I can conquer this one, too. I'll break out the soapy water and see what I see.

Sorry, Beanbag. Mine's no longer non-leaky, plus I already had it on the rim a long time ago. It felt (and looks) slightly thicker than a Supersonic. EDIT: You can see the ply lines in it, so it's still fairly thin.

EDIT2: I hit it with the soapy water, and nothing obvious stands out. There still isn't massive foam everywhere like with my RK SS, so I'm not sure what prompted the air-down (it dropped to probably 10 psi over night). But like I said, I've seen this before, so I'm confident that I'll be able to make it work for riding season.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I thought I'd post some pictures of what I'm talking about regarding the soap. The bubbly picture is my 2.4 MKSS that I just inflated a few mintues ago and soaped up. This is what all my Supersonics look like when the sealant dries up, etc.

The non-bubbly picture is the most bubbles I've ever seen on my XKRS - I also took this picture a few minutes ago. So sidewall-wise, the XK seems a ton better than the SS's do, and to be honest, most of the XK bubbles might just be from squirting the water on. It has never foamed up like the SS.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

beanbag said:


> Can anybody with a non-leaky Racesport tell us how thick the sidewall feels, compared to a Supersonic or Protection? I think some of the earlier leaky ones had sidewalls that felt almost as thin as Supersonics, if I recall correctly.


Maybe I can be of some help. I am the stupid idiot that ordered 8 Protections in 2.4 from Starbike only to end up with 3 (620g). The other 5 I got were Racesports that were put into the wrong boxes, this is according to Conti USA. Of the 5 RS, 4 of them weighed 620g and 1 weighed 580g. According to Conti USA, "As for the weight, the differential of 40 grams is very much within standard production tolerance." Great, so who would want to buy a bunch of overweight RS? No one would, so I am stuck with them because Starbike won't respond and I need tires. I have almost $400 invested in these tires, they better hold up to my terrain!

So, what I can tell you is, there was no visible sidewall seepage from the 3 Protections I mounted, but they were a pain to get the bead to lock on the rim. I had to mount them with a tube first. The one RS I have mounted went on without a tube but had a very small section of "bubbles/leakage." It was weird cuz it was in the same area on both sides of the the sidewalls, about the size of a small lime. I shook it some more, went for a quick ride and both tires lost 15lbs in a 24hr period. About the same as the two Protections I mounted a couple of weeks ago. Those 2 were fine after a 2 short rides, and held up on the rides, but the bike has since been stolen so I no longer have those tires.

As far as how the sidewalls feel, I can tell you that there was almost no difference at all in the Protections and the 4 RS that weighed 620g. The insides looked "coated" in both tires and they felt the same thickness, stiffness. The Protections up on the treads MAY have felt slightly stiffer, but in a blind test, hubby could not tell the difference. The one 580g RS however, did feel flimsier and thinner. Looking at the inside, you could see the "ply lines" very clearly and some sporadic coating but it was very thin. I will NOT be mounting that particular one. I will be mounting 2 more of the 620g RS on Tues on my new replacement wheels for my replacement bike that was stolen. I will report back with findings since I am now a Racesport user!

Brenda


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Aside from the labeling, it seems that your 620g "racesports" are exactly the same as the protections.

One thing I have noticed is that for tires that claim to have a UST bead, that the bead is rubber coated. Is there any difference in beads between your 620g tires?


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Neither hubby or I could tell any difference between them, and the coating does go all the way up onto the bead. I sure hope they are just mislabeled but the Conti guy says not, just mis-packaged. I have no choice at this point but to run them, so I just pray they hold up and don't leave me stranded!


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

beanbag said:


> One thing I have noticed is that for tires that claim to have a UST bead, that the bead is rubber coated.


Why wouldn't a UST bead be rubber coated? UST defines the bead profile, but no tire would seal if it weren't a rubber-coated bead. No?


----------



## global (Apr 3, 2006)

*first ride xking*

Just recieved two racesport 2.4s and two racesport 2.2s.The 2.4s each weighed 570 gr.The 2.2 weighed 495 and 500.Three of the four tires seal up perfectly with no leaks one of the 2.2s has been difficult but finally sealed.After our group night ride My buddy and I thought they rode smooth and cornered well.They will replace our race king 2.2s


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

just mounted my 2.4 x-king (early one from starbike) and this tire is HUGE. Much bigger than the 2.4 mountain king i had on there. It took 2 scoops and a little patience, but is holding 30 psi over the past few days. Once it stops raining, i'll get a ride in.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

CTB said:


> Why wouldn't a UST bead be rubber coated? UST defines the bead profile, but no tire would seal if it weren't a rubber-coated bead. No?


I have been in contact with a guy from Conti and he told me that the tires I received from Starbike do NOT have a UST bead. The ones they are making for the US market WILL have a UST bead. ?????

Brenda


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Now I am confused. The reason I asked about the bead was that all the tires I have seen that try to be UST or UST-like have a (butyl?) rubber coated bead, so that when mounted, the tire doesn't leak around the bead area. I haven't seen a UST conti tire, but I have a Mountain King Protection, and the bead is not rubber coated, or rather, it is kind of rough and looks like ply material.

My understanding is that the Protection version of the X kings do not claim to have the UST-like bead.
Motochick, is the Conti guy saying that the US Protection version WILL have the UST bead?


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

No, the protection version does not have the UST bead.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

motochick said:


> but the bike has since been stolen so I no longer have those tires.
> 
> Brenda


Dude! Uuugh, that seriously sucks! Adding insult to injury.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Yes, the US Pro version is slated to have a UST bead and weigh about 50g more. Funny, cuz the beads on my RS and Pro's look exactly the same, which is why I thought maybe mine were just mislabled! I think I will NEVER know the truth.


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

According to Bikerumor.com it looks like Conti is working on a new casing on the RaceSport...

http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/03/11/unboxed-and-weighed-syncros-flavor-and-continental-x-king-mountain-bike-tires/

"It's worth mentioning, though, that we would NOT run their Supersonic or Racesport versions as tubeless at this time. The casings are too porous and will make for a maintenance nightmare, not to mention reduced reliability. We've got word they're working on their Racesport line to improve the density of the sidewall to better hold sealant, but it'll be late summer at best (our prediction) before those tires are ready."


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Do you beleive this? if yes, read the whole thread from the begining.


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

I've made a few posts on this thread and I bought 4 RS and tried them myself too. I'm just passing the info along...


----------



## krandrus (Aug 2, 2007)

hypercycler
"It's worth mentioning said:


> I am having trouble understanding this - I have now been able to ride these tires and I am having no unusual problems with the sidewalls. In fact I would say that this has been on the easy side of a tubeless conversion. It sounds like there was a problem with some of the early tires, but mine have been problem free so far.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Tried the 2.4 Protection version ( not into tubeless bla bla bla ) on the front today, very fast, very predictable handled the mud thats around here currently fine, cleared instantly, steered well and shot down 1 fast descent so fast I got a rare these days buzz from it 

Normally run the RQ 2.4.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

krandrus said:


> I am having trouble understanding this - I have now been able to ride these tires and I am having no unusual problems with the sidewalls. In fact I would say that this has been on the easy side of a tubeless conversion. It sounds like there was a problem with some of the early tires, but mine have been problem free so far.


Kandrus, I had the luxury of speaking directly with the North America brand manager. He said he pulled the plug on these tires coming here because of all of the problems. His words were that they were "consistently inconsistent". He himself was having issues with them. He said that they were trying to make them too light.

You might have gotten a good set. Try and find some more and see if they are as reliable. It is really hit or miss. Mostly miss.

The tires roll amazingly, climb amazingly, let go of mud amazingly (although, if it is that muddy, you shouldn't be raping your trails anyway) and turn amazingly. They just haven't been holding air amazingly.

I can only imagine how much better these things would be without tubes.


----------



## krandrus (Aug 2, 2007)

Very interesting, Brett (I think there is only one NA rep) is the guy that sold me on Continental last year at Outerbike - glad to see that he is standing up to his company to look out for product quality.

Just an update, after a couple of more rides I am having a few challenges with slow leaks after rides in one of the tires. Interestingly, the stan's does not want to seal it up unless I take the wheel inside my house. The temperature here is still below 40 and either stan's or stan's and the tire do not make a fast repair in the low temperature.

I hope that they don't change the tire too much, I am a big fan. I can't believe how light and fast rolling these tires are considering the grip. Noticably better than the schwalbes.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

krandrus said:


> Very interesting, Brett (I think there is only one NA rep) is the guy that sold me on Continental last year at Outerbike - glad to see that he is standing up to his company to look out for product quality.
> 
> Just an update, after a couple of more rides I am having a few challenges with slow leaks after rides in one of the tires. Interestingly, the stan's does not want to seal it up unless I take the wheel inside my house. The temperature here is still below 40 and either stan's or stan's and the tire do not make a fast repair in the low temperature.
> 
> I hope that they don't change the tire too much, I am a big fan. I can't believe how light and fast rolling these tires are considering the grip. Noticably better than the schwalbes.


That's just it. They hold fine inside your house, just not while riding them. That's why quite a few here, in my opinion, have claimed that they are having no problems initially, myself included. Based on our previous experience with tubeless conversions etc. we thought all was golden. Then we rode them....different story.

Like you say, maybe it is the temperature there. I feel it's the tires though.


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

Try a better tire sealant. Over here in Europe, with a decent sealant no issues whatsoever.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

madskatingcow said:


> Try a better tire sealant. Over here in Europe, with a decent sealant no issues whatsoever.


I've tried Stan's, Slime Pro, Hutchinson and even Bontrager. Props to Brett for his decision to put the tires on ice until this gets resolved.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

madskatingcow said:


> Try a better tire sealant. Over here in Europe, with a decent sealant no issues whatsoever.


I know you said that some posts back, but how easy is it for us to get our hands on that stuff here in the US?

Personally, and somewhat hypocritically, I think that ordering stuff like that from overseas is environmentally irresponsible anyway. Being able to order this or that, and have it sent here, there and everywhere is just adding to the emmissions that are choking this planet. Yeah, the ship or plane is already making the trip, but that's because of the plethora of people doing the exact same thing. Probably for something largely unnecessary and insignificant.

I'm not innocent though, but trying to be more concious of it.


----------



## Diesel~ (Feb 17, 2008)

jochribs said:


> That's just it. They hold fine inside your house, just not while riding them. That's why quite a few here, in my opinion, have claimed that they are having no problems initially, myself included. Based on our previous experience with tubeless conversions etc. we thought all was golden. Then we rode them....different story.
> 
> Like you say, maybe it is the temperature there. I feel it's the tires though.


I came to that conclusion myself and removed the tire from my bike. Held air just fine in the house, but would get dangerously low by the end of the ride. No obvious leaks or bubbles, and definitely not confidence inspiring.

-D


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

krandrus said:


> I hope that they don't change the tire too much, I am a big fan. I can't believe how light and fast rolling these tires are considering the grip. Noticably better than the schwalbes.


I've got both and the X-king has good grip but the new Schwalbe pacestar edges are very grippy, more so than the black chilli used in the X-king . It just comes down to what tread pattern suits your terrain.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

I have a few rides on my 2.4 xking from starbike and really like this tire, BUT I can't get the damn thing to stay sealed. It's fine during a ride, but goes flat every night. There seems to be a few rather large holes in the sidewalls that seal up during a ride, but leak over night. I've had virtually no problems getting my supersonics to seal. Kind of a bummer, not sure what to do with this tire.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Blatonator, which sealant are you using? Just curious. I've just bought Slime Pro to compare to the Stan's I've been using. I'll be attempting to seal my Race King with the Slime Pro to see if it works better than the Stan's did. Stan's worked, it just took some doing.


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

i'm using stan's which has always worked for me in the past.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Thanks for the info. I've had good luck with Stan's as well. The Race King and Mountain King are just royal beetches to get sealed. I'm curious if the Slime will work easier or worse than the Stan's. (I used Stan's on my X-King.)


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

blantonator said:


> Kind of a bummer, not sure what to do with this tire.


I hear where you're coming from man. It can be seriously frustrating. But seriously, I have to say with complete honesty and humbleness to just throw some tubes in and ride them. They will blow you away.

I had been super pissed that I spent the money on them with the intent to run them tubeless without incessant maintainence...I even made that clear on here, but I decided to one day just suck it up and run them with tubes. Holy ****. This is seriously THE BEST tire I have run. Tubes or no tubes. It has continually surprised me with its grip over all sorts of questionable situations and sections.

There are areas that I know for a fact, that had I been on another tire, and been going over that inclined wet rock or rooty section, and been on the gas like I was, I would have spun out something ridiculous. These just go, go, go. Now, I have gotten them to slip a little here or there, but what tire doesn't? These just stay sure footed like no other tire I have been on.

Maybe it's the volume (2.4), maybe it's the black chili, maybe it's the pressure (*20 psi!!!)*. They just work silly well. I can't imagine how well they'd ride without tubes. Throw some lightweight tubes in there, they lightest you can find, talc 'em up like a baby's butt and keep dropping the pressure. I seriously just checked mine and they were at 20 psi. I have been riding them hard at that pressure for the past week. They were probably at no higher than 23-24 at the beginning of the week. I weigh 155.

Anyway, I probably sound like a lunatic here. Just give em a chance with the tubes.

Oh, and they turn like crazy. Come into turns fast, barely brake (don't skid, God I hate skidders) and drop the inside of your handlebar into the turn. Hold on.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Lo and behold someone has finally realized that you don't need to ride tubeless. Just get some decent high volume tires at low pressure to get the same results.

Just taking the P. Good to see your having success with them. Be a shame to not use them just because they can't be set up tubeless.

PS. They would ride exactly the same without tubes.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah gvs, I don't think that tubeless is necessarily a pointless thing, but I think I was drinking the marketing and rider-hype kool-aid with running tubeless in general. 

I NEVER flatted with tubes anyway. Now, running these X-kings with this much volume, makes it pretty much moot interms of feel and handling.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

Tubeless makes sense as a puncture preventer, which I don't struggle at, I run my tires just above the starting to squirm point on the front, rear I ride pretty hard or it drags on roads and the like, so I really can't see how running them lower would be a improvement and anti pinch wise if your running that low you'll trash your rims and nothing is worse that the jolt you get from rim impact.

XKing 2.4 Protection is great on the front, but I'm missing the volume of the RQ2.4 so going back to that I think, I'll save the XK2.4 for long distance enduro type events.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I ride the 2.4 in the rear myself. It's been great for me. If there was a 'slightly' smaller volume version I'd run that in the rear instead, but honestly it's not making a negative difference for me as far as I can tell. In the past I've generally run tires that are the same size front and rear or slightly larger up front as well. 

These 2.4's are the biggest I have run so far though.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I had it in the rear nice tyre, but mud clearance is uselss on my RM Element on the chain stay bit, back to a RK2.2, and thats after I knocked 2mm's of frame material off so it would even fit, might end up in the rear of the Rigid though, we'll see, Advantage 2.4 there currently, can't remember how quick / slow it rolls.

RQ2.4 is much bigger volume wise and doesn't noticeably to me role much slower, so might aswell have my hand / elbow protection.

Interestingly I suffer less on the rigid with Carbon forks, but I've got the bars really high on that


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

I've been running a set of the the XKing 2.4 Protection with tubes for the past month now. I have found that I really needed to drop the pressure on these to increase the grip, especially on loose rock. The tire rolls well and has good grip (with the right pressure). I previously had a set of the TK/RQ 2.2, which I like a lot..and still consider my goto tire. 

In general, I've never had any issues with flats running Conti tires (protection versions) with tubes. Tubeless is overrated, IMO... but that's another thread


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The Race King 2.2 was very sensitive to pressure as well, it seemed to have a 3-4 psi wide sweet spot. So far I've found that the extra volume of the X-King 2.4 seems to really shift that sweet spot down as much as 3-4 psi from the RK 2.2. 

I'm still tinkering with tuning out the sideways sproing off of the edges of roots or rocks. The RK 2.2 doesn't seem to do that, so I assume it's the higher edge knobs on the X-King getting tweaked. We'll see how much lower it needs to go in pressure to stop that.

In deep gruel squidgy mud, the X-King 2.4 sure does float around a bunch compared to a MK 2.4, especially entering muddy sections at an angle. It is much less sketchy than the RK, but there can still be some pucker moments. There can be a fair bit of wheelspin churning through boggy spots longer than a bike length and the directional control can be sketchy, likely due to the fairly wide open patches between knobs acting like a float in mud. It does churn through the mud, even in conditions where you think you might end up staling or dabbing in ankle deep oatmeal mud, but it does take some serious grunt to do it.

On tacky loamy surfaces and sandy/gravelly stuff, the X-King 2.4 is stunning And on purely wet roots and rocks, it does work exceptionally well. It is amazing how fast it rolls on hardpack at lower pressures. 

I've been swapping tires around so much that the tubeless issues aren't a factor for me, but I do wish that Eclipse made a bigger tube size as their tweaky light tube is stretched to the limit in an RK 2.2, it would be thinner than a soap bubble in the X-King 2.4.

I'm going to give the X-King 2.2/Eclipse tube combo a shot to see if floats less when it hits deeper mud and if I can find a balance of low pressure versus rim thumping with the smaller volume of the X-King 2.2.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

gvs_nz said:


> Lo and behold someone has finally realized that you don't need to ride tubeless. Just get some decent high volume tires at low pressure to get the same results.
> .


So have your 2.2's stretched out, or are they the same "puny" size as the MK 2.2?


----------



## Muahdib (Apr 13, 2010)

Wanted to update everyone on my experiences with my 2.4 RS X-Kings. As far as holding air the rear tire has had absolutely no problems whatsoever. The front has lost air after rides but it hasn't been anything serious. I'm wondering if I just might need to add some Stan's to it. Not sure but will try that out to see if it helps. As far as riding on the tires, I have been extremely impressed. So much faster rolling that what I'm used to (run RQ 2.4's on my Blur LT.) I was expecting far less traction comparatively, but have been very surprised at the level of traction I get with the X-Kings. Once they figure out the issues with people running tubeless I think they will have a real winner on their hands.

Conditions I run in are hardpack, loose over hardpack, gravely and rocky. In these conditions they are fantastic. Mud performance has no bearing for me as we cannot ride with any real kind of rain on the trail. Very high clay content in West Texas. As to the tubeless debate, I fully understand people thinking it's over hyped especially if you don't ever flat running tubes. Here however, you'll get a flat every single ride no matter how careful you are running tubes. :madman: Thorns, burs and cactus all over the place. Tubeless has been an absolute God send for riding here.:aureola:


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I've been comparing the X-King 2.2 RS on 17mm wide XC rims and the X-King 2.4 RS on a 28mm wide AM rim on the same 5x5 FS bike. Boy I really miss having a tire volume right in the middle between those two. 

The 2.2 is super responsive to steering input because it is a very short round radius, but even on a FS bike, the small volume results in a ride that tips between squirmy at the sort pressures where it feels comfy and compliant on rocks and cobble, to feeling bouncy when you raise the pressure to get rid of squirm. I can't find a happy medium at my weight. They do cut to the bottom of the little boggy spots and don't float across them sideways as much as the 2.4's, but the knobs are shorter so it is still a bit like a swamp buggy race to grind through a boggy spot, with lots of wheelspin to get forward progress.

The 2.4's still roll fast and are great at conforming to rocks and cobble. On those wide rims I am running about 20psi with tubes. But that extra 100gms of tire weight and the extra wheel weight I could do without. 

I'd really like a X-King 2.3 RS. :thumbsup: :skep:


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Have you tried the 2.2 on the 28mm rims. Will give you a smidge more volume.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Just a heads up, but Highway 2 (US distributor) has stopped stocking these tires for now until the problems get fixed.

Edit: Also, has anybody had any luck running the Slime Pro sealant in these tires? Maybe they seal better than Stans?


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

if you put the 2.2 tyre on a 19-21 mm inner width rim, you'll get your desired benefits


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

I've got X-King 2.2 RS and they will be mounted on my new crest rims. But I noticed, that they have the same rotation direction for the front and rear. I used to ride with tyres with diferent rotation directions. How do you mount these? Still mount as the conti recommends or watch you way and mount the rear tyre reversaly?


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

jochribs said:


> Yeah gvs, I don't think that tubeless is necessarily a pointless thing, but I think I was drinking the marketing and rider-hype kool-aid with running tubeless in general.
> 
> I NEVER flatted with tubes anyway. Now, running these X-kings with this much volume, makes it pretty much moot interms of feel and handling.


I converted to tubeless because I flatted every time I rode this trail. It has briars (sp) on both sides of the trail and I still get flats even with them trimmed back. I also run 2.1 and 2.0 tires so I cannot run them with very low psi with tubes.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

beanbag said:


> Just a heads up, but Highway 2 (US distributor) has stopped stocking these tires for now until the problems get fixed.
> 
> *Edit: Also, has anybody had any luck running the Slime Pro sealant in these tires? Maybe they seal better than Stans?*


I did try Slime Pro and it didn't fix the issue either. I'm using tubes for now, and may try some Schwalbe Rocket Rons as an alternative raceday tire. Otherwise I'll probably run RK 2.2 Supersonics with 125-gram tubes again, they're not as griptious but they definitely roll and accelerate well, while having plenty of volume.


----------



## cycad (Jan 5, 2011)

How does the xk compared to rq/tk and maxxis minon dhf in terms of traction performance on wet roots, gravels, rocks, mud... Nevermind the weight. 

Cheers,


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Can somebody besides ritoh confirm the _height_ of the 2.4 X king vs a 2.2 Race King Supersonic? I don't have a problem with the width clearance of the tire, but height might be an issue (seatstay arch).


----------



## jdmaum1 (Feb 22, 2010)

I have to give a quick non-professional review of this tire....

I'm going to start by setting up my riding style, terrain, and previous tire experiences. I am 265 lbs, ride mostly around Birmingham, AL. The trails around here are great but are definitely more XC oriented, Oak Mt. was just added as an IMBA epic ride, we knew it all along....lol!! I'm not a racer but am an enthusiast. The highest I've had my bike off the ground is maybe 2.5 - 3 feet but there are frequent 1 - 2 foot drops/jumps that I love to hit. I purchased my 2nd SJ FSR about a month ago, replaced the stock tires with Small Block 8s, 26x2.125, setup tubeless. The SBs are light and pretty fast but from the onset I never felt comfortable on them. At high speeds they never inspired confidence and they skidded more than any tire I've tried (maybe it was a psi problem?). Anyhow, after 4 rides, 3 flats and a dented rim, I decided to try a new tire. The 3rd flat was from a pinch flat (Bonty standard tube - 200+ gr) after the rim dented, can't setup my wheels tubeless unless I buy a new rim, which will likely happen in the future.

So, after reading this thread and many others I decided to try the new X-King over RoRos, No Nics, Mt Kings II (couldn't get). Currently I don't give a d*mn about riding tubeless since my rim has a small dent, and I need more psi anyways....I'm a fat guy, but working on it!!

I ordered the 2.4 RS fr., 2.2 RS rear with Conti light tubes (125 gr), today was my first ride......

First let me tell you the negatives:

1) These tires sling stuff......

There are numerous water crossings at Oak Mt were I got pretty wet (will be great in the summer, today it was 55*) and I had to remove a bunch of leaves to prevent the "motorcycle engine effect." My bike is muddier than normal too.

2) I gained a little weight going with the X-Kings although probably only a quarter pound or so, with tubes.

3) Maybe a little more bouncy than the tubeless setup. Still playing with the psi.

*The positives*:

1) Holy S*it!!!!

2) Still very lightweight.

3) The traction on these tires is remarkable. Its been raining most of the week and the only time these tires lost grip were over wet, uneven roots. These things stick to the ground like nothing I've felt before. Over small, uneven rocks going downhill/uphill/around corners they NEVER swerved or skidded. No matter what terrain they never swerved or skidded (except a few roots) and even on fast off cambered corners. They did not skid under heavy braking or under high torque uphill situations. I've never experienced grip like this!!!

4) No pinch flat! This is big for me, and I didn't take it easy on the trail.

5) I almost matched my fastest time ever at Oak Mt, and I wasn't trying to speed through the trail today.

6) They climb like a machine. On the trail I cannot feel the weight gain at all. They roll MUCH better than the SBs and stock tires.

If you're only into tubeless this may not _yet_ be the tire for you, I'm sure Conti will fix the tubeless issue. But DO NOT mark these treads off your list. I used the brakes today less than I ever have and I think these tires will really allow me to grow as a rider.

Just my $0.02 but this is by far the best upgrade I've made. The best tire I've used!

I do not support 1 company over another but I am now a Conti fan......


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah man, they are pretty remarkable. I weigh 155, and i'm finding the sweet spot to be about 20-22 psi. Even on pavement they don't squirm or start to fold on me at that pressure. Impressive tires. I'd like to get another set if I can find them, because I don't know how long it is going to be before the newer/improved ones come out. I still want Racesport 2.4's, but I couldn't give a rats ass about running them tubeless at this point.


----------



## cddaraa (Oct 19, 2009)

I ve just received a conti XKing 2.4 RaceSport and a Race King 2.2 RaceSport. 
Mounted on Fulcrum red metal 1XL tubeless wheels (19mm) and sealed up with stans.
At about 15 mins I mounted them both with an air compressor . No pinholes, no leakage from the walls, just some bubbles from the lips of the rim. 
Really really easy mounting. I was a little bit scared that I couldn't make it because it was my first time going tubeless. 
I have to apologize for the dirty hands and the bad angle cell photos. I will try to bring the bike out of the garage and take some new ones

So, 
Race King 2.2 RaceSport width 
, on Flickr

Race King 2.2 RaceSport height
, on Flickr

X-King 2.4 RaceSport width 
, on Flickr

X- King 2.4 RaceSport height
, on Flickr

Side By Side
, on Flickr

, on Flickr


----------



## jdmaum1 (Feb 22, 2010)

jochribs said:


> Yeah man, they are pretty remarkable. I weigh 155, and i'm finding the sweet spot to be about 20-22 psi. Even on pavement they don't squirm or start to fold on me at that pressure. Impressive tires. I'd like to get another set if I can find them, because I don't know how long it is going to be before the newer/improved ones come out. I still want Racesport 2.4's, but I couldn't give a rats ass about running them tubeless at this point.


Yeah, I 2.4s all around would be cool


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

beanbag said:


> Can somebody besides ritoh confirm the _height_ of the 2.4 X king vs a 2.2 Race King Supersonic? I don't have a problem with the width clearance of the tire, but height might be an issue (seatstay arch).


Yes, photos here: https://s240.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/mechBgon/bike_parts/XK_RS24/ Both are new tires straight from the package, same rim, same pressure (with tubes). The heights are for the casing only, not the knobs.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

ok, thanks. Seems like the X king is wider but not taller.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

absolutely UNBELIEVABLE!!!! Dirty hands???? You should be ashamed. 


On a more serious note, the Race King "Racesport" seems to be quite a bit smaller than the SuperSonic in 2.2. Wonder if they are gonna be any good? That's not much bigger than the 2.0 SuperSonic, and they pretty much had none of the great characteristics of the 2.2 SuperSonics from what I've read. 

I actually got a pair of them shipped to me by mistake (2.0 RaceKing SS). I took one look at them and said no way. Just way to thin.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Eorpean sellers have this option. Looks like it is hard to find these in the USA


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Hey guys,

Got a problem with brand new x-kings 2.2 RS.
Got few weeks ago from www.bike-components.de. Needed to wait for some time, some germany seller didn't have them in that time. well got them, fitted on my new ZTR Crest rims as tubeless, sealed them with no serious problems with FRM sealant. After two rides I've got serious problems. I've found two pinholes on the sidewall of one tyre. Sealed them and that was finished. In the next day morning I've found 8 pinholes on another tyre sidewall and flat tyre. Sealed them with more or less problems. But that wasn't finish. In the evening I've found more pinholes and a flat tyre. Also sealed with lot of disappointment and misunderstanding. After that I've tried to mount the wheel on my bicycle and another pinhole appeared just from nothing.
All these appear on the sidewall, so normal amount of sealant can't seal them during the ride. I might stop the bike and flip the tyre. Other connection between all these pinholes is that all of them appears on the same line. Line that connects that RaceSport puncture protection layer and the basic tyres layer. It is clearly notable when you take the tyre and take a look at it.
Also I've wrote the message to continental custom service and seller about it. Now waiting the answer. Did you have some other complains about it? I've read very good reviews and tests about it and it performs all my needs. I really like these tyres, but I don't wanna such risk getting flat during the training or even in the competition.
With my new bike I've rode up to 15 km for test rides with no hard riding. Inflate up to 40 PSI. It's the ZTRs limit for such size tyre, was no extreme riding.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

painless said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Got a problem with brand new x-kings 2.2 RS.
> Got few weeks ago from www.bike-components.de. Needed to wait for some time, some germany seller didn't have them in that time. well got them, fitted on my new ZTR Crest rims as tubeless, sealed them with no serious problems with FRM sealant. After two rides I've got serious problems. I've found two pinholes on the sidewall of one tyre. Sealed them and that was finished. In the next day morning I've found 8 pinholes on another tyre sidewall and flat tyre. Sealed them with more or less problems. But that wasn't finish. In the evening I've found more pinholes and a flat tyre. Also sealed with lot of disappointment and misunderstanding. After that I've tried to mount the wheel on my bicycle and another pinhole appeared just from nothing.
> ...


Are your pinholes in this area?


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Exactly. Did it appeared only at the begining of normal usage?

Also I'm very disapointed of FRM sealant. There was few same pinholes and it couldn't seal them. First time left huge pool on floor. Yesterday after last sealed pinhole I've tried to collect that sealant from the floor. I've colected 10 ml of it and there left some that syringe couldn't get it at all!


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

Try it with Stans


----------



## Just1Gear (Jan 14, 2011)

painless said:


> Exactly. Did it appeared only at the begining of normal usage?
> 
> Also I'm very disapointed of FRM sealant. There was few same pinholes and it couldn't seal them. First time left huge pool on floor. Yesterday after last sealed pinhole I've tried to collect that sealant from the floor. I've colected 10 ml of it and there left some that syringe couldn't get it at all!


Doesn't quite sound like they should be calling it "sealant" huh?


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

probably you are right. will try Stans in some time... now the main head-ake is these pinholes...


----------



## bombat (Jan 10, 2011)

I found this thread after having a load of issues getting the sidewalls my 2.2 Racesports to seal. Here are mine with 100ml of Stans in them:



















Really rather annoyed - what's the point in having a UST bead combined with a sidewall that won't seal?


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

it will after a few days


----------



## hypercycler (Jul 7, 2009)

Yea now all 4 X Kings I have are sealing up fine (after about 2 mos, 100ish miles). The initial setup made me want to give up but glad I didn't. I use Stan's as well and it took some time to seal up every little pinhole. One tire went flat the other day and it turned out that the sealant was pretty much gone. Poured a cap in, problem solved.

I've also found that these tires love to run in lower pressure (in my case, 25psi front and 27psi rear ,2.2s, 175lbs geared up weight). If I go near 30psi they tend to bounce around.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Wow, my 2.4 RaceSport barely foamed a single bubble through the sidewall. The bead bubbled a bit, but then it sealed up. That is with 3 scoops of Stan's, however. I learned my lesson with my Race King that any Conti is going to eat up way more than one scoop and definitely more than two. After sitting for probably 2 weeks, mine still had about 28 psi in it today when I checked it.

I haven't ridden the tire yet, so I can't agree or disagree with all the people that told me it's going to be a POS.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

X-King 2.4 racesports are measuring up at a bit over 57mm on Crests:



Very nice handling front tyre and working really well with a Race King 2.2 supersonic in the rear.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

Tigworld, that's the same tire setup I'm hoping to ride very soon on mine. My XKRS was about 57.3mm on 21mm Havens (same as the Crest), so pretty darn close.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

+2

same here, Crest's are being laced up to be ready for friday (i hope) & previously mounted X-King 2.4's are ready & standing by



currently running my set of X-King''s at 25/27 psi on DT 4.2 D rims (DT XR 1450 wheelset) with yellow tape & slime pro, i'm 175lb with full kit - my 607g & 623g 2.4 X-King's Protections have kept the exact same pressure for 4 weeks solid now 

...1 week later edit...
rode the bike yesterday + set the correct pressure first - both tyres lost 8 psi over 5 weeks - so no the exact same pressure afterall! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chase1996 (Jun 30, 2010)

I am running a new setup of X-King Racesports 2.4f/2.2r with 22/24 psi on a set of Crest wheels. Tubeless, with my own home brew sealant. I check my tire pressure before every ride.They did tend to weep a little from the sides (could be my sealant mixture), but didn't result in any noticeable loss of pressure.

I just recently ran this combo all over the Pisgah/Dupont trail system. Including Bent creek, Butter Gap, Green Lick, Big Rock trail, etc.

This tires handled *EVERYTHING* that was thrown at them exceptionally well. Roll *FAST*, grip everything like a champ, including wet rocks/roots, grip well during braking and inspire confidence in cornering.

I think these may replace the Rocket Ron as my favorite tire!


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

culturesponge said:


> ... my 607g & 623g 2.4 X-King's Protections have kept the exact same pressure for 4 weeks solid now


Those are some nice weights for a 2.4 protection tyre. I remember a time when we used to run Kujo downhill tyres or Conti Vertical Pro 2.3's to get similar levels of performance as the X-Kings at close to 300-400g per tyre more.


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

Anyone have any issues with chainstay clearance? I have a 08' RM element and want to run 2.4 XK RS / Race king SS on ZTR Flow rims. Not trying to hijack the thread but... Any idea if the wider rim will make for better or worse clearance? I am holding off on ordering the wheelset until I figure this out... The ZTR arch is the other option...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Wider rims make wider and squarer profile tires. 

The Race King should fit in the back fine, I run a RK 2.2 SS on the Vertex RSL frame and there's enough clearance in the chainstay yoke. You will have as much clearance in the mud as makes sense to ride with an RK 2.2 SS. Older Elements likely don't have enough rear clearance for a XK 2.4 in the back.They do fit in the 2011 carbon Element


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Chase1996 said:


> I am running a new setup of X-King Racesports 2.4f/2.2r with 22/24 psi on a set of Crest wheels. Tubeless, with my own home brew sealant. I check my tire pressure before every ride.They did tend to weep a little from the sides (could be my sealant mixture), but didn't result in any noticeable loss of pressure.
> 
> I just recently ran this combo all over the Pisgah/Dupont trail system. Including Bent creek, Butter Gap, Green Lick, Big Rock trail, etc.
> 
> ...


So, do you think this would be a good tire combo for ORAMM?? 
I'm in a tire debate


----------



## Chase1996 (Jun 30, 2010)

tmc71 said:


> So, do you think this would be a good tire combo for ORAMM??
> I'm in a tire debate


I would have no concerns running them.


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

rockyuphill said:


> Wider rims make wider and squarer profile tires.
> 
> The Race King should fit in the back fine, I run a RK 2.2 SS on the Vertex RSL frame and there's enough clearance in the chainstay yoke. You will have as much clearance in the mud as makes sense to ride with an RK 2.2 SS. Older Elements likely don't have enough rear clearance for a XK 2.4 in the back.They do fit in the 2011 carbon Element


Rocky thank you for the reply! would you include my 2008 Element in the "older" category? I currently have Race king 2.2 UST on crossmax SL's on the bike (tire is approx. 50mm wide x 50mm high). Looks like I would have enough room for a 60mm tire as long as the height is close to the same. The Flow/Arch (28mm v.s. 24mm) choice is hard because the weights are so similar and I'm a 200 pound rider who is sensitive to wheel/tire flex. I think a low pressure 2.4 XK RS on the rear would come in handy for climbing the sandy rooted hills around here! Anyway, I think I'll pull the trigger on the Flow wheelset and see how it goes. XKing's are already on order!!!


----------



## r29 (Mar 12, 2010)

Currently got RK 2.2 regular front and rear on my giant yukon fx

Looking to change up the front to something with more grip but maintain the speed.
Have a pair of regular nevegals as well

Change the Race king to ss or protection?
XK MK2 TK/RQ Which would be a better option 2.2 or 2.4 protection/race sport 

type of riding. Dry days - hard pack/concrete

after it rains - loose/muddy(not heavy)


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Picked up a X King 2.4 Protection at Sea Otter. The tire initially measured 57mm wide on 22mm internal width rims. After a day, it stretched out to 59mm. Compared to a Race King SS, it is as tall (including knobs) and a bit wider at the edges of the knobs. If it stretches any more, I will be in trouble.

The sidewalls are definitely hard and crunchy, so there should be no problems telling this tire apart from the Racesport version. I haven't tested it yet, but I hope it doesn't lead to a crunchy ride quality.

The bead does not look as rubber coated as on my Specialized 2Bliss tires. It was a little harder to set up tubeless, but once set, it sealed up quickly with sealant and seems to be holding air.


----------



## e_lasman (Aug 24, 2009)

Any statistic of it's durability? Planning to use it as all-around tire for asphalt\hardpack 60/40 with offroad? I'm doing about 20 mi per day (bike-to-work) where about 13-14 miles are on hardpack.

And another question — did anyone run 2.4 version on FOX 32 TALAS 140 (2009) or similar? I've a quite good offer but it's remote and I'll have to chance to try them on my fork before to buy a pair.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

e_lasman said:


> Any statistic of it's durability? Planning to use it as all-around tire for asphalt\hardpack 60/40 with offroad? I'm doing about 20 mi per day (bike-to-work) where about 13-14 miles are on hardpack.
> 
> And another question - did anyone run 2.4 version on FOX 32 TALAS 140 (2009) or similar? I've a quite good offer but it's remote and I'll have to chance to try them on my fork before to buy a pair.


Very expensive tire to burn off on the road.
I've had bigger tires on 140 Float than 2.4 x-sport.


----------



## DanB1978 (Jun 7, 2008)

Just a word of warning, been using my conti x king racesport for the past week and done just over 100 miles of xc riding. Managed to get them to seal on stans arch rims very easily with 2 cups of sealant and was running them around 32 to 35 psi, all good. Today riding a not particularly rocky climb and bang rear tyre flat with an inch cut to the side wall, luckily I was carrying a tube plus some park tyre boots so was able to repair and get home. Rode this trail many times on schwalbe racing ralph ust no problems. So be aware if you tackle anything with a hint of rock the sidewalls are very fragile in my opinion.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Just wanted to add that the X-king tread pattern and rubber compound is very good at shedding mud, even the thick sticky kind.


----------



## roy harley (May 8, 2004)

DanB1978 said:


> Just a word of warning, been using my conti x king racesport for the past week and done just over 100 miles of xc riding. Managed to get them to seal on stans arch rims very easily with 2 cups of sealant and was running them around 32 to 35 psi, all good. Today riding a not particularly rocky climb and bang rear tyre flat with an inch cut to the side wall, luckily I was carrying a tube plus some park tyre boots so was able to repair and get home. Rode this trail many times on schwalbe racing ralph ust no problems. So be aware if you tackle anything with a hint of rock the sidewalls are very fragile in my opinion.


Are those X Kings that you have UST or just the tubeless ready tires? The X king looks a lot like the Bontrager XR4 TLR and I am debating which one I should try out.


----------



## BitterDave (Nov 27, 2007)

roy harley said:


> Are those X Kings that you have UST or just the tubeless ready tires? The X king looks a lot like the Bontrager XR4 TLR and I am debating which one I should try out.


Racesport


----------



## roy harley (May 8, 2004)

BitterDave said:


> Racesport


I went to the webite to see some specs on this tire, *Tire specs*
And the recommended tire pressure is 50psi? That is pretty hight for a tire that can be used in a tubeless setup. That is almost double what most people do run on their tubeless setups. What pressure were you at when you had the failure?

thanks


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

painless said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Got a problem with brand new x-kings 2.2 RS.
> Got few weeks ago from www.bike-components.de. Needed to wait for some time, some germany seller didn't have them in that time. well got them, fitted on my new ZTR Crest rims as tubeless, sealed them with no serious problems with FRM sealant. After two rides I've got serious problems. I've found two pinholes on the sidewall of one tyre. Sealed them and that was finished. In the next day morning I've found 8 pinholes on another tyre sidewall and flat tyre. Sealed them with more or less problems. But that wasn't finish. In the evening I've found more pinholes and a flat tyre. Also sealed with lot of disappointment and misunderstanding. After that I've tried to mount the wheel on my bicycle and another pinhole appeared just from nothing.
> ...


It seems, that I've sold the problem. I've read in some forums about sealing conti tyres. Sometimes they are lubed with some kind of substance that prevents tube sticking to the tyre. I gues that it must be some kind of oil or fat. As I know, oil melts latex very quickly so that is the reason why I couldn't seal the tyre. I've found only some kind of residues of sealant and no latex membrane on tyre inner walls. I've washed it with dish washer and mounted again. Tyre sealed emediately and it hold the air all week. I've opened it and found latex membrane on it. I think that the non-sealing nightmare is over


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

painless said:


> It seems, that I've sold the problem. I've read in some forums about sealing conti tyres. Sometimes they are lubed with some kind of substance that prevents tube sticking to the tyre. I gues that it must be some kind of oil or fat. As I know, oil melts latex very quickly so that is the reason why I couldn't seal the tyre. I've found only some kind of residues of sealant and no latex membrane on tyre inner walls. I've washed it with dish washer and mounted again. Tyre sealed emediately and it hold the air all week. I've opened it and found latex membrane on it. I think that the non-sealing nightmare is over


I tried that with one pair, and tried vigorously scrubbing out the other pair with a stiff brush and isopropyl alcohol, and still had leaks that made the tires effectively unusable as tubeless. I gave away one pair to a friend to use with tubes, and stuck the other pair on my grocery-getter/all-rounder mountain bike (with tubes, obviously). On to the Schwalbes....

Actually, disregarding the broken tubeless aspect, they're OK mid-weight XC training tires. I've been riding our local 24-hour course with them in training, and they grip fine and are predictable. No sidewall issues so far, either.


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

I just received my XKing's yesterday. I ordered two 2.4 RS. What I got was two 2.4 RS boxes that had two 2.2 RS inside. I'm a little bummed out because these took almost three weeks to get here. I'm going to email retailer and see what they say but I really don't want to wait for replacements. Tires will be going on a Rocky Mountain Element for aggressive XC and club racing, I'm 200 pounds ready to ride. I currently have Race King 2.2 UST on the bike now and was hoping to go up in volume not the same or down... Do you all think that the 2.4 is worth it over the 2.2?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The downside to the X-King 2.2 for a big guy is that you have to run higher pressures to keep the rim from getting whacked and then they are a bit bouncy and don't have the same sort of contact patch, they are about 3mm smaller in width than the Race King 2.2 so the smaller volume is noticeable.

The X-King 2.2 weighs just a bit more than than the Race King 2.2 because of more rubber in the knobs. 

The X-King 2.4 are noticeably bigger in volume than the RK 2.2 and about 100gms each heavier. But the volume is nice for aggressive riding. The bike will change direction faster with the XK 2.2's but I bet you will like the feel of the XK 2.4's better.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

The 2.4 will have more volume than a RK2.2, think RK2.25 sits a few mm's taller and a few mm's wider, rounder carcass to, I approve.

Waiting for 2.2 Pro's here  2.4Pro is to big for my frame and not big enough for the rigid.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

X-King 2.4 RS








X-King 2.2 RS








Race King 2.2 SS


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

Well I sent off an e-mail to customer service. I'm hoping for a discount on replacements while still keeping the 2.2's but we'll see what they say. Anyway, my current Race kings are the UST version and have a smaller carcass than the supersonics. They measure roughly 50mm across the carcass so these XKing 2.2's should measure close to the same only slightly less height. I am able to run low pressures on my UST RK's (24FR 30RR) due to the beefed up carcass of the UST version even on 17mm internal rims. I have never tried the black chili compound before but from what I'm reading the compound has a lot to do with the performance difference between versions. I'm thinking that these XKing 2.2 might be a significant improvement from what I have now despite the narrow profile and the higher pressure I will have to run... Hmmm... hope I get a response from customer service soon!


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

Awsome rocky thanks for the pics! You submitted while I was typing so didn't see your post but yes looks like those XKing 2.2's are same width as my 2.2 race king UST.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I'd say for front use you'd be better off with the 2.2 with a 17mm rim, you'll proberley be able to run it lower before the squirm came in, I'm running the 2.4 Protection on the front with the thicker side walls on a 25mm rim and can't run it that low before squirm kicks in.

2.4 on the rear would be fine as it's not steering as such.

The 2.4 is a fast tire, which grips very well and works on most terrains, wet rocks, mud no issues other than sub 2mm's of clearance to my frame.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Is it realy on the same rim? :O


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

painless said:


> Is it realy on the same rim? :O


All three photos are on 17mm internal width rims (XTR and DT Swiss).


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Rockyuphill, any chance you could compare how the XK 2.4 rides compared to the RK 2.2 SS? I'm using the RK 2.2 SS on all my bikes currently, and love it to death. However, the XK might be a compelling choice on my "trail" bike for more aggressive riding. It might also be a good choice on my XC bikes in the fall when I'm dealing with a bunch of leaves in the trail.

By the way, are you still running the Eclipse tubes?


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

Got a response from customer service today... They want me to send back they tires and they will re-ship the correct order with shipping charges refunded. I think this is acceptable from a customer service standpoint but that leaves me with no new tires for about six weeks and I race on May 28 so looks like I'm going to mount up the XKing 2.2 RS. So now I'm going to put a new order in for one 2.4 XKing and one 2.2 Race King SS. I think that will provide a well rounded supply of tires for the season but still only leaves me with ONE 2.4 XKing to play with. For setup options... Think a XKing 2.2/Race King 2.2 rear and XKing 2.2/2.4 front is OK or should I be ordering a set of 2.4?


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The X-King 2.4 is a fatter and cushier tire than the RK 2.2, I run almost 4psi less pressure in the X-King 2.4 than I do in the RK 2.2. You can feel the difference in tire knob cush compared to the tire volume cush when you're rolling on hard surfaces. The X-King definitely has better grip in loose surfaces, still not stellar in squooshy mud.

Because the edge knobs are taller, both the 2.2 and 2.4 X-King tend to _sproing_ into a bit of sideways slip off of the edges of trail obstacles like embedded rocks or roots that the RK rolls over.

I really wish there was an X-King 2.3 right between the two volumes. I'd like the air volume of the RK 2.2 with the side knob height of the X-King and centre knob height of the RK 2.2.

I think an X-King 2.4 RS front and Race King 2.2 rear might be the right combo to limit washing out the front wheel on loose surfaces.

And I am still running the Eclipse tubes, now in 3 wheelsets, but not in the X-King 2.4's, the Race King 2.2 is about as far as the Eclipse want to stretch. They need to make a 2.2 to 2.5" size.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

X-King 2.4 RS front / RaceKing SS 2.2 rear is an awesome combo. I put the X-King 2.4 RS front on (replacing a RaceKing SS 2.2) to get some more cornering traction in the wet but have left it on even though things have now dried out. As rockyuphill says it gives great grip in loose surfaces although is a little squirmier than the RK over true hard-pack.


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

mechBgon said:


> Actually, disregarding the broken tubeless aspect, they're OK mid-weight XC training tires. I've been riding our local 24-hour course with them in training, and they grip fine and are predictable. *No sidewall issues so far, either.*


... he said, jinxing himself. :madman: Of my remaining two 2.4 RaceSports, I lost one to a sidewall slice (casing didn't fail, but I could see daylight through the hole), and today I power-slid the other one and the casing suffered a very large hernia. At first I thought I'd simply bent the wheel, but the wheel was actually fine, it was the tire casing. I nursed it about 10 miles home.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Just FYI, the Protection casing is not all that awesome either. Crunchy, not very supple/shock absorbing, and higher rolling resistance.

I wish Conti would adopt Maxxis' EXO casing.


----------



## r29 (Mar 12, 2010)

Should I get a x-king 2.4 rs front or mk2 rs 2.2 or rq/tk 2.2 for more grip?
Should I get rk 2.2 protection rear on the next set?

Currently, running regular 2.2 rk front and back. I ride hardpack/cement/some loose surfaces. On rougher or more rocky terrain I tend to slip and loose my traction.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I thought I'd give an update now that my experiment has progressed.

Front: XK 2.4 RS on an Easton Haven UST rim using Stan's.
Rear: RK 2.2 SS on an Easton Haven UST rim using Slime Pro. Since I had sealed RS SS's before with Stan's, I wanted to see if the Slime Pro worked better.
Both wheels have Stan's removable core stems - I replaced the OE Easton ones so that I could have the removable core. This is important, which I'll mention later.

Front

Tire mounted up easily. I removed the core and used my small air tank and Prestaflator tool. This popped the tire on easily. I had put in 3 scoops of Stan's, which I have found to be the minimum when sealing these large volume Conti tires. This is based on sealing some RK 2.2 SS's and MK 2.4 SS's in the past - 2 scoops wasn't enough to cover the holes, size, and have some left over to shake 'n bake. The XK showed nearly zero leakage - the bead sealed quickly, and I saw no bubbling out of the sidewalls. It has remained this way for over two months now.

Rear

Same story for mounting, except using Slime Pro instead of Stan's. Once again, the air tank and Prestaflator worked great - this is news, as prior to this *without removable core stems* I could NOT get the tire to seat using just compressed air. I had to do the "inflate with tube, pop off one bead, then inflate without tube" trick with RK's. Granted, this was with my Specialzed Roval Traversee wheels, not the Eastons, but I do believe I could mount RK's onto the Rovals if I had removable cores in those wheels. *I cannot recommend removable stems highly enough for this task.* They clearly allowed more airflow from tank to pop the beads, and they'll work great for refreshing the sealant.

After initially using too little Slime (I got confused on the amount for some reason), I had to keep topping it up. I have at least 3/4 of the bottle in there now, negating any weight save of the RK tire. It kept using it up to seal all the holes, and every time I'd reinflate it, more would bubble out of the sidewalls and there would be no sloshing when I'd shake 'n bake. My results were significantly worse with the Slime Pro than with Stan's on the RK SS. The tire deflates overnight in most cases, something that did not happen with Stan's.

Post Ride Sealing

The weather has FINALLY cooperated enough here in Crap-igan for me to have gotten three rides in on this combo. After each ride, I have checked. The XK is doing great. I had one phantom deflate while the bike was in my van during the day, but other than that, it is in great shape after three rides. Over the last two weeks, it didn't lose any pressure when I went to ride it yesterday.

No such luck with the rear/Slime combo. That drops to 5 psi overnight in most cases. Today it seems to be holding better, so perhaps these last two rides helped. However if I continue to have issues, I'm going to eventually open it up, clean it out, and use Stan's.

I'm not saying Slime is a bad product; I think for easy to seal tires, it would be great. But my personal results were much better with Stan's on these porous Conti tires.

Recommendations

1. Clean off the inside of your tire with some kind of solvent (I used brake kleen on a paper towel) and let it dry before you try to seal it. This gets any residual mold release compound off of them and lets the sealant stick.
2. Get removable core stems. I don't work for Stan's, I don't get any cut from recommending their products, but I've had good luck with their products. The new Universal stem even worked in my Havens without any modifications (I had to use some RTV on my older version stem).
3. Have compressed air available to seat the beads. Helps tremendously.
4. Use at least three scoops; otherwise, you don't have enough to cover the big volume of these tires, and you'll never get it sealed.
5. I personally will avoid Slime Pro for these troublesome tires and stick with Stan's, based on my results. Having sealed RK's with both sealants, I had better luck with the Stan's.

Ride

As has been noted, the XK has a great, plush rolling feel. I like this aspect of it greatly. I'm still learning how it corners, but in loose, dry stuff, it seems to slide sooner than my old MK did. However, it also seems to slide more progressively and give you a chance to save it, unlike my experience with the MK. For me, the MK's would suddenly wipe out and I'd be down. I'm still experimenting with pressures, but I'm now running lower than ever - 26 psi front and rear (I'm 155lb with gear). The XK/RK combo really rolls well, which I like since I have no power. I'm going to get more miles on this combo and see what I think. I may eventually more the XK to the rear and get something even grippier up front, given the mixed conditions I deal with here, but the jury's still out on that.

Overall, I like the XK tire and had good luck sealing it. YMMV


----------



## iRoNeTiK (Feb 22, 2007)

I got a huge gash in my Xking RS 2.4 (front) during a race yesterday. I don't think it's the tires fault. Came up behind a bunch of people stopped and I ended up slamming on my brakes and stopping right on top of a tree root/rock?! So 1" gash on the tread part, not sidewall.

Boy are these tires hard to find now!! had to order from a UK website, my original set came from one my usualy places in the US.

Overall, the tire is pretty good. I have the 2.4 X-King RS Front, and 2.2 RK SS on the back. I come from a 2.1 Nevagal and 2.1 SB8 combo. The Continental are faster but I think the Kenda's are more durable and the SM8 is more grippy. I like them both and will reserve the Kenda's for more rocky terrain.

Btw, I run these with tubes on Stan's ZTR Alpine Rim's and the 2.4 X-king is a pain to get on, big tire with narrow rim


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

I'm finding the XKing to have surprisingly low grip on small-rock-over-hardpack surfaces. It works fine when sitting but when I stand up to pedal it slips out right away. I'll need to compare this to my Maxxis Ikon.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

beanbag said:


> I'm finding the XKing to have surprisingly low grip on small-rock-over-hardpack surfaces. It works fine when sitting but when I stand up to pedal it slips out right away. I'll need to compare this to my Maxxis Ikon.


rear tire slips when unloaded => try lower pressure, it might help.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

shapirus said:


> rear tire slips when unloaded => try lower pressure, it might help.


HAHA that's very funny, my XKing self deflates to about 15 psi during a ride.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

beanbag said:


> HAHA that's very funny, my XKing self deflates to about 15 psi during a ride.


well, that sucks


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

beanbag said:


> I'm finding the XKing to have surprisingly low grip on small-rock-over-hardpack surfaces. It works fine when sitting but when I stand up to pedal it slips out right away. I'll need to compare this to my Maxxis Ikon.


That sounds more like an issue with weight transfer on the bike, you're moving your weight too far forward when standing.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

CTB said:


> As has been noted, the XK has a great, plush rolling feel. I like this aspect of it greatly. I'm still learning how it corners, but in loose, dry stuff, it seems to slide sooner than my old MK did. However, it also seems to slide more progressively and give you a chance to save it, unlike my experience with the MK. For me, the MK's would suddenly wipe out and I'd be down. I'm still experimenting with pressures, but I'm now running lower than ever - 26 psi front and rear (I'm 155lb with gear).
> YMMV


I was having the same washing out front tire issues as well. I went up on the front tire pressure and now all is good! 2.4 size, 27 front, 22 rear (I weigh 145) mounted to Crest rims.

Brenda


----------



## turnerth (Aug 4, 2010)

I run the x-king 2.2 bas akward on my xc bike and friggn love it. Seems like it should be run that way in the back. Great traction under power and guides the rear wheel when breaking. Much better than the racing Ralph 2.1 that it replaced. I run tubes / little to no mud.


----------



## mtbvfr (Dec 24, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> I swapped the X-King 2.4's off in favour of the MK 2.4 SS's for the balance of the muddy season, holy moly what a difference in rolling resistance. The X-Kings are just a magnitude faster and quieter. The MK's are certainly better in directional control in squidgy mud, but roll _much_ slower. Now I'm really looking forward to having the trails dry out some so I can put the X-Kings back on.


Talking about Directional Control, how do the X-Kings perform during braking on loose surfaces?

When I see that asymmetrical centre tread, it makes me think it would move from side to side.

Thanks, Michael.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Sorry - I haven't read every post going back the last few months, but are the Racesport altered/fixed as sold in America or are they still too thin/porous? 

I'd love to get some of these tubeless but won't until they are fixed.

If not, it would be great if we could get word from Continental, something like, 'new RS version coming middle of July' or whatever. They are a solid enough company with a great history - its not like their reputation depends on this tire and they have to pretend its great as-is, they just need to let us know when this issue will be fixed and a 0.5 version released...


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Email highway2 and ask them when the new version will come out.


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I bought my X-King RaceSport 2.4 months ago and it wasn't porous at all. It's held air for three months.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

I've just converted one that I had ran with tubes for about 600km and it sealed up almost immediately. No where near as porous as the race kings. Some weeping through the side wall. Took about 15 mins of slowly turning and shaking the wheel to get Stans at every hole and its now held air for a couple of days and a couple of rides.


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

I have a set of 2.2 RS. I washed out the inside of the tires first to remove the mold release agent and mounted to Mavic crossmax SL. The rear tire had three relatively large pinholes like others have noted. Two ounces of Stan's sealant in each tire and the Stan's shake method sealed up the holes instantly but would periodically spring a leak for the first 2-3 days requiring additional shake. The front tire had NO pinholes and has held air as well as any true UST tire I've used right from the get go. After several days of riding and shaking when necessary both tires are holding air well and have yet to be an issue on the trail. As others have stated, I believe these tires need time for the carcass to stretch. So yes there are inconsistencies in quality between tires but in my experience with a little time and patience the "low quality" tire has proven to be functional so far...


----------



## magic9418 (May 15, 2011)

So I need to get new tires for my new Motobecane Fly...I am 240lbs and ride everything from adventure races that require MtBikes though are all on the road to really rocky and rootly single track at the local trail. I am look for a tire that leans towards the more technical stuff as the stock Kenda Klimax Lite that came stock will work for the road adventure races. Reading this thread and all of the other "what tires should I get" around the forum, I am leaning towards a Panaracer Rampage front with an Panaracer CG AC AM in the rear or Conti. Mountain King 2.4 front with an XKing 2.2 rear. As this is primarily a Conti thread there might be some bias towards it, but what do you guys think of those two setups?


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Update on my 2.4's. Here is a pic of the front tire on my hubby's bike after just less then 200 miles of N. AZ terrain. Anyone else have this happen? I had one knob on my front do the same. BTW, they are holding air just fine and sealed up easily.










Brenda


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Either pressure too high or its some sort of manufacturing defect. I've not actually seen this on MTB tyres but the moto will tear the side knobs off above about 16psi in grippy rocky terrain.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Can you shoot a pic of the sidewall just below the missing knobs, it looks like you can see cord showing through the rubber.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Ya, seen it on moto tires a lot, as that is what I ride. My moto tires rip knobs off at 10 lbs, front tire. This tire has 27lbs in it. And yes, there is a ton of cord showing thru, both front and rear on both our bikes. You should see how bad the rear is, there is more cord then rubber! I was suppose to receive the Protections but got these by mistake, I ran them cuz I needed tires. Wonder if I should send these pics to Brett? I got these from Germany so I may just have to eat them. They work great tho!


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

I can notice threads on my x-kings RS as well. Looks like conti do not hasitate to solve its old problem with threads coming out and loosing knobs.
I had the same problem with my twister supersonic tyres used only in competitions. Lost two side knobs, tyres were riden just 100 km in MTB aka road marathons.
Despite this, I'd rather choose conti on my crests rather than schwalbe. I've noticed lot of schwalbe TLR blow offs from ztr rims this year...


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

painless said:


> I've noticed lot of schwalbe TLR blow offs from ztr rims this year...


I wonder how that can happen, as those Schwalbe TLR's fit very tight on the ZTR Rims, almost to the point where it's impossible to put them on or take them off the rim (unless using tire levers, and even then ...).


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

I don't know. Is this a stars implications or horoscopes... But it is enormous when you mount the tyre on Podiums and leave your palms bloody and fingers blue, try to inflate and it blows off. One blow off - tyre becomes useless. It happaned with Scwalbe UST and new TLR tyres. 
I have one FF TLR. Mounted and sealed with no problems on Alpine. Needed to dismount few times for some reasons. after that - the bead doesn't want to seat on the rim from its center. it deforms noticebly. If you try to inflate more, it blows of. Will try to mount with tube on a regular rims. Maybe schwalbe makes very tight but also very weak bead. also it could be becaus of ZTRs BSD technology...


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Schwalbe sell a bead lubricant for their tires and they weren't designed to fit over rim strips or abuse with tire levers.


----------



## culturesponge (Aug 15, 2007)

painless said:


> I don't know. Is this a stars implications or horoscopes... But it is enormous when you mount the tyre on Podiums and leave your palms bloody and fingers blue, try to inflate and it blows off. One blow off - tyre becomes useless. It happaned with Scwalbe UST and new TLR tyres.
> I have one FF TLR. Mounted and sealed with no problems on Alpine. Needed to dismount few times for some reasons. after that - the bead doesn't want to seat on the rim from its center. it deforms noticebly. If you try to inflate more, it blows of. Will try to mount with tube on a regular rims. Maybe schwalbe makes very tight but also very weak bead. also it could be becaus of ZTRs BSD technology...


perhaps its you?

we mounted up new X-King 2.4's on Crest's the other day - the tyres were both very tight in the bead & i had to gently ease them on with a plastic Mavic tyre lever - but so far (touch wood) no problems with seating or holding air or blowing off - mind you i was very careful not to inflate the tyres over 30psi

also mounted up a set of Race King SuperSonic 2.2's on a Podium MMX wheelset & the week before Racing Ralph EVO 2.25 on the same wheelset - wifey prefers Race King's to Ralph's afterall. t'was a tight fit but with gentle leverage the tyres went on without drama or distorting the rims - was also very careful again not to put any more than 30psi in or it *will *fook up the rims according to Stan.



http://www.notubes.com/ZTR-Podium-MMX-Wheelset-330Ti--P455C57.aspx said:


> The ZTR Podium MMX is a low pressure rim and it must be run at pressures of 15-33 psi. Higher pressures may cause damage to the rim and will not be covered in the warranty. If you prefer to run high pressures, please consider purchasing a different rim from the ZTR product line.


you can help seat a bead by inflating a tyre to around 12-15psi and then roll the wheel while putting your bodyweight on the tyre - or i sometimes ride around our tiny flat if the tyres are new or clean (and the wife is not home )

i really like these X-Kings - but Rocket Ron EVO 2.25 are still my favourite

best


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

After putting a couple of good rides on the X-King 2.4 racesport front setup tubeless, I'm going to put a tube back in. Its not that it doesn't hold air properly, but what is bizarre is that I'm needing to run about 5psi higher pressure (than with tubes) to get it to feel solid enough to bunny hop off without deflection. At the higher pressure, the traction just drops off.

You'd think running it tubeless I'd be able to drop the pressure, but at anything lower than about 33psi you just can't trust the front not to feel like its peeling off the rim when you load the tyre up just before you launch over an obstacle. Bit of a bummer.


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

TigWorld said:


> After putting a couple of good rides on the X-King 2.4 racesport front setup tubeless, I'm going to put a tube back in. Its not that it doesn't hold air properly, but what is bizarre is that I'm needing to run about 5psi higher pressure (than with tubes) to get it to feel solid enough to bunny hop off without deflection. At the higher pressure, the traction just drops off.
> 
> You'd think running it tubeless I'd be able to drop the pressure, but at anything lower than about 33psi you just can't trust the front not to feel like its peeling off the rim when you load the tyre up just before you launch over an obstacle. Bit of a bummer.


I'm currently running X-king RS 2.2 FR/RR on 17mm internal rims. These tires replaced true UST race kings and I also have to run about 5psi higher pressure with the X-kings. Funny thing is that they conform to obstacles easily as well if not better than the race kings UST even at higher pressure. The race king UST has a much thicker carcass.

My X-kings are 2.2 not 2.4 so not comparing apples to apples but for me the air pressure increase has not hindered performance at all. Although I just ordered a Stan's Flow wheelset yesterday... hopefully take things to the next level.


----------



## magic9418 (May 15, 2011)

At 240lbs riding easy AM (single track w/roots and rock) and single track races,...with Conti tires it seems that I have 3 choices moving towards more aggressive with each set. For the most XC setup a 2.4 RK in the rear with a 2.4 XK in the front, or I was thinking of getting the 2.4 XK protection model for my rear and the MK2.4 for the front, or maybe a MK2.2protection in the rear with a TK2.2 in the front. What do you think for an all around performer riding everything under the sun? I have 25mm rims if that makes a difference.
Thanks
Matt


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

magic9418 said:


> At 240lbs riding easy AM (single track w/roots and rock) and single track races,...with Conti tires it seems that I have 3 choices moving towards more aggressive with each set. For the most XC setup a 2.4 RK in the rear with a 2.4 XK in the front, or I was thinking of getting the 2.4 XK protection model for my rear and the MK2.4 for the front, or maybe a MK2.2protection in the rear with a TK2.2 in the front. What do you think for an all around performer riding everything under the sun? I have 25mm rims if that makes a difference.
> Thanks
> Matt


I would suggest going with mountain king protections for what you describe, and maybe put a race king on the rear if you race.
Honestly, I've found that the race king 2.2 outperforms the X-King 2.2 in every situation except for loose over hardpack. X-King is one of the worst mud tires I've ever used. The race sport casing is a joke, since whatever compound they use to make it tubeless ready breaks down as you ride, opening up little pinhole leaks. Supersonics take a few days to seal, but once they're done you're good until the tire is dead. I and the guys I rde with have not found the casing to be any more durable than the supersonics (1 torn sidewall and shredded to the cords after maybe 10 rides).


----------



## magic9418 (May 15, 2011)

Thanks strader...should I go with 2.2 or 2.4...i have 25mm Vuleta XRP Pro SL rims. My previous tires were 2.2 and I have never done 2.4s...I think I am going to go with the MtKing up front and a RK in the rear with protection on both which would both be 2.2.
Thoughts?


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

XK2.4 Pro on the front, moderate pressure had total side wall collapses at low speed on roads today, making me jump off twice today, while going for a test ride around the block!!

on a DT6.1 Freeride rim aswell, strangeness.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Turveyd said:


> ...had total side wall collapses...


What do you mean? Tubeless? Did it burp? Rolling the tyre off the rim?

Like I said in an earlier post, I was not able to get a tubeless setup on the X-K 2.4 RS that I was happy with. Higher pressure was needed than with tubes to get the X-K stable on a Crest rim.


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

magic9418 said:


> Thanks strader...should I go with 2.2 or 2.4...i have 25mm Vuleta XRP Pro SL rims. My previous tires were 2.2 and I have never done 2.4s...I think I am going to go with the MtKing up front and a RK in the rear with protection on both which would both be 2.2.
> Thoughts?


Sorry for late reply..
For your weight and riding style, 2.4's all the way. I probably would have liked the x-kings more if I had gone for the wider casing, at least based on my experience with the mountain kings.


----------



## Bill Gill (Sep 20, 2010)

Running 2.2 RC front and back on my bike, I wont be using anything else for a while they are great. Only other tyre I'd like to try but in no rush because I'm very happy with the X-Kings is the RubberQueens/Trail Kings


----------



## magic9418 (May 15, 2011)

strader said:


> Sorry for late reply..
> For your weight and riding style, 2.4's all the way. I probably would have liked the x-kings more if I had gone for the wider casing, at least based on my experience with the mountain kings.


 Thanks for the info...I went with a XK Pro 2.4 on the rear with a MK II Pro 2.4 on the front. I will let everyone know what I think after I get them on and rolling. I am going to do a ghetto tubeless setup...hope it works ok.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

culturesponge said:


> perhaps its you?
> 
> we mounted up new X-King 2.4's on Crest's the other day - the tyres were both very tight in the bead & i had to gently ease them on with a plastic Mavic tyre lever - but so far (touch wood) no problems with seating or holding air or blowing off - mind you i was very careful not to inflate the tyres over 30psi
> 
> ...


this is not schwalbe thread, but...
I run on crests mounted with x-kings RS as tubeless. had some problems with one tyre sealing. there were lot of mounting and dismounting. but no problems with blow offs.
yesterday I've tried to mount FF TLR on SLRs that blew off alpine rim I've mentioned before. Tyre mounted very easaly, but had to put some work with my floor pump to get inflate it. finaly, it got some air, started to pop on the and then blew off just reached 1.5 bar. It is not the first time with such schwalbe beads to me. Realy, i read lot of threads about schwalbes and it loks like schwalbe makes very weak bead.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

Got an XKing 2.4 in last week. Aired up easily on olympic rims with stans sealant, but the tire wouldn't hold air overnight because of some persistent sidewall pinholes. I reinflated and spun the tire on its side a number of times and it would seal, but the next day (or next hour) be flat again. 

I finally decided to wash the tire out as suggested in this thread. When I removed it, there was no sealant residue on the inside of the tire, perhaps an indicator that there's some kind of slippery coating there. 

Washed the tire out with Dr. Bronners and a scrub brush, remounted and went for a ride. It managed to hold air overnight this time, down to about 28lbs from 30lbs yesterday. 

So only one ride but so far I'm pretty happy with the tire - so easy to mount compared to the race king SS, and the sidewall seems much more burly. Traction was good too, I haven't found the limits on this tire yet.


----------



## speedymadr6 (May 28, 2011)

magic9418 said:


> Thanks for the info...I went with a XK Pro 2.4 on the rear with a MK II Pro 2.4 on the front. I will let everyone know what I think after I get them on and rolling. I am going to do a ghetto tubeless setup...hope it works ok.


Have you managed to get out on the XK and MK MK2 yet?

I have just put this set up on my Blur LT, very happy with the XK in the rear but I'm not 100% on the front yet, just interested in your thoughts?


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Trying to set this up tubeless on my xtr UST wheels. So far its been frustrating. Sidewalls are clearly leaky (bubble under water) but wouldn't weep stans. Took tire off cleaned the inside thoroughly and now trying again. If this doesn't work I will run these with tubes on my wifes bike and wait for the UST versions. BTW when you have to put 3 scoops of stans in a "tubeless ready" tire doesn't that pretty much negate the weight savings over UST?


----------



## magic9418 (May 15, 2011)

speedymadr6 said:


> Have you managed to get out on the XK and MK MK2 yet?
> 
> I have just put this set up on my Blur LT, very happy with the XK in the rear but I'm not 100% on the front yet, just interested in your thoughts?


They should be here today so I will be mounting them Ghetto Tubeless tonight or tomorrow and riding Wed or Friday...I will let everyone know how it goes.


----------



## speedymadr6 (May 28, 2011)

Well after a week and a half with no problems with XK protection tubeless on the rear it now deflates over night which is very frustrating. The MK is still holding air with no issues but I am becoming rather annoyed with the XK now, starting to wish I hadn't bothered, I love the tyre but I can't be doing with all the hassles trying to get the thing to stay up.

Might end up going back to my Nic and Ralph set up if this continues :-(


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

speedymadr6 said:


> Well after a week and a half with no problems with XK protection tubeless on the rear it now deflates over night which is very frustrating.


You need to take the wheel off, clean the outside, and do that shaking thing again. After about 2-3 rounds of this, mine seems to hold pressure now.


----------



## speedymadr6 (May 28, 2011)

Was going to try the shake and bake again and leave it horizontally on a bucket to see if it seals up again, the bead is nice and tight all the way round so must be through the sidewalls as I am getting air bubbles. Just frustrating when the Schwalbes just inflate and hold air straight away.


----------



## kroe (Mar 30, 2009)

These are unquestionably the worst tires I have ever used. I have a dozen or so rides on mine. These are the US version with UST beads. 

The beads lock in nicely. They roll very fast. They get good but not nevegal traction. With around 25 psi the traction is much better. They sealed up fine after the first day.

So what's the problem? Every single ride they spring a leak and lose enough pressure where I need to top them off during the ride, very annoying. The sidewalls show strings from normal rub on rocks and roots. There is already a fatal leak in the sidewalls on the rear tire. 

This is on the same trails I always ride. No tire has ever had such issues. Tubeless ready is a total misnomer. Super light normal tires seal up just as easy and last much longer. This is the first set of tires to be taken off my bike when the little "new tire" hairs are still intact.

They look great on paper, but don't waste your $100.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

kroe said:


> These are unquestionably the worst tires I have ever used. I have a dozen or so rides on mine. These are the US version with UST beads.
> 
> The beads lock in nicely. They roll very fast. They get good but not nevegal traction. With around 25 psi the traction is much better. They sealed up fine after the first day.
> 
> ...


I had also sealing problems, but solved by washing the tyre. Read some post above and find some information.
Tubeless sometimes gives some headache...


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Has anybody seen the new "fixed" version yet?


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

never heard about it


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

I have whatever version they sold me in the Jan-Feb timreframe on my front wheel. UST wheel (Easton Haven), no tape, etc. I used Stan's on an XK2.4, and it's been performing fine. It leaks down over time, but only 2-4 lb over the course of a week. It easily holds air over the course of a ride.


----------



## biketuna (Mar 28, 2008)

beanbag said:


> Has anybody seen the new "fixed" version yet?


I got mine from the UK. www wiggles.com


----------



## blahblahx (Jan 18, 2009)

x-king on stans rims w/protection version. sidewall bleeds like crazy ; 2scoops every 2weeks; finally tossed em in the trash. too bad they rolled nice


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

blahblahx said:


> x-king on stans rims w/protection version. sidewall bleeds like crazy ; 2scoops every 2weeks; finally tossed em in the trash. too bad they rolled nice


Did you wash the mold release agent from the inside of the tire? Sealant won't stick unless this is done with some tires...


----------



## blahblahx (Jan 18, 2009)

nope, but every 2 weeks all the sealant was gone and the tire looked like it was getting a white wall so much stans was seeping through the side wall. Inside of the tire had stans stuck all over it.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Yeah, I think the Protection Version is fine. I've had some on for a few weeks holding just fine. I think they all do as advertised except the Racesport. Could be wrong, but that's been my experience and what I've seen so far. 

In fact the protection version (2.2 rear, 2.4 front) went on really easily, whole thing took 30 min total. Other tires have been nightmares. Like the person above said, with Conti's, you have to wash them first.


----------



## blahblahx (Jan 18, 2009)

I ride in rocky areas, with the protection version. The protection version looks like fish scales. The sealant was bleeding through that area. I think, the non-protection versions may work better. I don't think the protection version is very protective. As soon as you scrape the fish scale, you have very thin sidewall left. Probably would have been better design to skip the fishscales and just put in some extra rubber. Less bleeding better protection.


----------



## kroe (Mar 30, 2009)

Switched my Xkings out for Nobby Nic Evos this weekend. They sealed up immediately, no leaks from anywhere, even before doing the shake thing. Three days in pressure seems unchanged. Traction is noticeably better.

These things are a dream come true as long as they old up!


----------



## mechBgon (Jan 28, 2007)

LightMiner said:


> Like the person above said, with Conti's, you have to wash them first.


1. I washed mine and they just leaked worse.

2. If they're being marketed as "tubeless-ready, just add sealant," then that's really all the customer should have to do.

After my own experience with them, there's no way I'd sell any to a customer. "Well you see, sir, when they say _just add sealant_, what they mean is to stand in a bucket of goat blood at the full moon, scrubbing out the interior of the tire casing while chanting an anagram of _Seal, tire, seal_, such as _Altar See Isle_... then add sealant and ride. And bring a tube and a pump."


----------



## speedymadr6 (May 28, 2011)

kroe said:


> Switched my Xkings out for Nobby Nic Evos this weekend. They sealed up immediately, no leaks from anywhere, even before doing the shake thing. Three days in pressure seems unchanged. Traction is noticeably better.
> 
> These things are a dream come true as long as they old up!


Yep after a few weeks I gave up and sold the tyres on and switched back to my snakeskin Nic's, they just seem to work so much better tubeless.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

I'm absolutely not sure about this, but when I bought my protections they weren't available anywhere for about 2 - 3 weeks, then the 2.2s were available a week or two ago. The 2.4s are still not available but are supposed to come in any day. 

I wonder if this is a new batch? Pure speculation, but it seemed like everyone was out locally and on internet, and now they are available, the ones I got and put on 2 weeks or so ago are straight from Hwy 2 through local bike store.

Ah, irony! My 2.4 just got here right now, guy rang the bell as I'm typing this.

But, yeah, the protections as just purchased, sealed right up, not one pinhole on the whole thing. Hasn't dropped any air last 3-4 days.


----------



## sascwatch (Mar 3, 2011)

2.4 RS version here, took an air compressor but they sealed up no problem on ZTR flows. Haven't worried about the air as they are still good. Added air once in 3 weeks.


----------



## Spin Cycle (Nov 6, 2004)

Third trys the charm ! I have a 2.2 Racesport and I had better luck than most the first couple of tries, I finally took it off and really scubed / wiped out all the old stan's then cleaned it again with contact cleaner and let it sit for a couple of days. The tire was 491 grams new and after cleaning and drying out it still gain 5 grams ( stan's still in the tire casing ?) Clean my stans Podiums throughly then applied one wrap of yellow tape.
Mounted the tire then soaped the bead and aired up with air tank, tire was trying to hold air, added 60ml / 60 grams (one full red cup) of stans air up to 40 psi with hand pump. Then the shake and bake rotated from side to side tire was down to 25 psi without any visually bubbles or leaks. Added air shake and bake side to side and then for a ride. Tire has keep air all night. Going for a long ride today and will post an update. It seems as other have found out a through cleaning / scubing is critical to make the stan's seal these tires. Overal width at casing 55 mm this tire rolls so well I hope I can keep it working had it on the rear trying now on the front, replacing a RoRo 2.25 TLR just the know the differance.


----------



## bikerboyj17 (Dec 18, 2007)

A little OT, but how did you find the RoRo 2.25 TLR? Were they easy to set up tubeless? Did you measure the width of them?

Thanks!


----------



## Spin Cycle (Nov 6, 2004)

*X-King on Front*



bikerboyj17 said:


> A little OT, but how did you find the RoRo 2.25 TLR? Were they easy to set up tubeless? Did you measure the width of them?
> 
> Thanks!


RoRo TRL was Super easy to set up tubeless @ 464 grams they sealed up with 60ml/gram of stan's. Casing was 55.8 mm abount 1 mm wider than the X King on stan's Podium rim's.

I only have two rides with the X King on the front but here in NE Iowa / SW Wisconsin conditions so far I had more confidence today on the X King over the RoRo's, before the second ride today I added another 30 ml/grams for a total of 90ml/grams of stan's as I was goning to be along way from the road and didn't want to deal with losing air on the x king, It most likely wouldn't have been needed to add the extra stan's. They stayed at 30 psi since last night , with two 2 hour rides !


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

I have two bikes, 4 X-king Protections from the US. Washed them, cleaned them with alcohol, painted them with latex, added a gallon of sealant (ok a little exaggeration, but it was a lot) and they STILL LEAK LIKE CRAZY!!!!! This sucks, I need a lightweight tubeless ready tires that works!


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

motochick said:


> I have two bikes, 4 X-king Protections from the US. Washed them, cleaned them with alcohol, painted them with latex, added a gallon of sealant (ok a little exaggeration, but it was a lot) and they STILL LEAK LIKE CRAZY!!!!! This sucks, I need a lightweight tubeless ready tires that works!


 Seems like these tires have been hit or miss for some people. I had 2 Racesports and 1 sealed great with only 1 scoop of stans, while the other would never seal. Large holes would appear during rides that would never seal. I washed them both w/ alcohol & scrubbed them, kept adding stans, etc. It was a PITA w/ that 1 tire....

I'm now running the 2.4 X King that sealed on the front and an IKON on the rear, which is a great tire for the rear but a little sketchy on the front IMO on anything but buff hardpack. IKON sealed right up, no issues. Although the X King is starting to show some serious sidewall wear.
I've also had great results with the new TLR Schwalbe: Rocket Rons, Racing Ralphs, and Nobby Nics.


----------



## motochick (Jun 22, 2010)

Yes, it seems there was an older version that had sealing problems, I have the older version. Getting some newer versions that have not had the sealing issues. Sounds promising.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

There are two ways of leaking (could be both at one time):
1. leaking throw main rubber
2. leaking throw bead.

the first way needs sometimes patience. Maybe need to be washed again. try to do all the job in warm place. do not use high pressure for the beginning (up to 2 bar). there some latex resides are been left on side walls after sealing pinholes. some times needs one or more time to remove them and seal again. painting with latex before mounting is useless. maybe it could give an opposite effect I think. after the inflation liquid latex can't normally reach pored sidewalls to seal them.
few days ago I've sealed used Conti RK 2.2 SS on my Crest rim. It needed some hard work with my underpowered floor pump, sidewalls were like riddle. But I've reached my point and it holds the air fine. My friend gave up quickly after installing brand new RK 2.2 SS on his Alpines.
If the second way (leakage throw the bead), than we must know what rims do you use. Despite this, Protection version made with regular bead instead racesport with special tubeless bead. that means the bead can't lock normally on rims hook (exception should be ZTR's BST rims).

Put the mounted tyre into the water and look, where is the problem. If the bead, try to roll out for some if you have enough pressure. some times bead need to lock normally giving some loads in the fields. If still problem occurs, try to use rubber strip, that could help to create normal seal between bead and the rim.


----------



## richsto (May 23, 2008)

No problems sealing three different 2.4 and 2.2 X-King protections on Mavic 819s. Washed inside with warm soapy water and scrub brush then wiped down with a little finish line degreaser. Sealed right up with no leaks, holds air nice. Probably the easiest tire I've ever mounted with Stans.


----------



## blahblahx (Jan 18, 2009)

Mine mounted great too. Unfortunately after that it was 2 scoops every 2 weeks.


----------



## Spin Cycle (Nov 6, 2004)

tmc71 said:


> Seems like these tires have been hit or miss for some people. I had 2 Racesports and 1 sealed great with only 1 scoop of stans, while the other would never seal. Large holes would appear during rides that would never seal. I washed them both w/ alcohol & scrubbed them, kept adding stans, etc. It was a PITA w/ that 1 tire....
> 
> I'm now running the 2.4 X King that sealed on the front and an IKON on the rear, which is a great tire for the rear but a little sketchy on the front IMO on anything but buff hardpack. IKON sealed right up, no issues. Although the X King is starting to show some serious sidewall wear.
> I've also had great results with the new TLR Schwalbe: Rocket Rons, Racing Ralphs, and Nobby Nics.


This is ths same set I'm running except 2.2 X king and Ikon rear have you tried a race king rear, just wanted to know race vs Ikoon not sure about the Ikon yet as I'm still getting use to the midwest wet/moist condition compared to the front range of colorado. The Ikon would be great rear XC race tire there IMO


----------



## buzz advert (Sep 28, 2009)

After reading this thread, I emailed Conti. From the horse's mouth: *The X-King RaceSports are NOT meant to be tubeless*. The tubeless ready offering is the X-King Protection.

They admitted there has been confusion about this--from whom they didn't say. But I can vouch for several retailers wrongly claiming that the RaceSports were tubeless ready. I got the Protection version and it sealed up without any fuss. In fact, once inflated it was rideable within minutes. Now inflating was very challenging, requiring a bike shop's industrial pump. This may possibly be more of a function of my wheels--Mavic Crossmax SLs--than the tires. Not sure.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Don't worry, the Protections will leak also. Everything will seem fine, and then one day while riding, you'll think "hmm, the rolling resistance seems a little higher than I remember. And the tire is making a crunching sound." That's when you'll know...


----------



## blahblahx (Jan 18, 2009)

I had the protection. The "protection" is worthless. First slight brush against a rock and it's gone. Maybe it works for side punctures from cactus, but it does nothing for abrasions. Mine blead stans so much you could see it coming through the sidewalls. It first I thought the tires were just dirty, When I looked closer, I could see it was Stans. Had to put in 2 full cups every 2 weeks. Finally the sidewall the blew out during a race (1/8" hole in sidewall, while climbing). Tire was on for 2 months. Real shame it had good traction and rolling. But I will never buy another one.


----------



## rfxc (Oct 18, 2004)

Anyone have insight on how a race king 2.0 protection would look compared to the size of x-king 2.2? I have run x-king 2.2 rear 2.4 front, all ProTection, for goof off rides. But I'm considering running Rk 2.0 rear, XK 2.2 front for racing. Yep, I'll use ProTection for racing, bc I'm paranoid of sidewall cuts. I ride aggressively. 

thanks for the insights folks.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I've got a RK2.0 folder and think 1.8" thats the size it looks, it's tiny compared to the 2.2 sadly very low volume.

Fast though, seriously fast but can't cope with any mud at all, unlike the RK2.2 I can ride year round in the UK.


----------



## rfxc (Oct 18, 2004)

I figured as much. I saw some weight specs on the rk 2.0 and was impressed... They sacrificed size. I'll be racing in rocks, on berryman trail... I'll opt for more volume. 



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kirsa (Jul 5, 2011)

rfxc said:


> Anyone have insight on how a race king 2.0 protection would look compared to the size of x-king 2.2? I have run x-king 2.2 rear 2.4 front, all ProTection, for goof off rides. But I'm considering running Rk 2.0 rear, XK 2.2 front for racing. Yep, I'll use ProTection for racing, bc I'm paranoid of sidewall cuts. I ride aggressively.
> 
> thanks for the insights folks.


Hi,

First of all, where did you get 2.0 protection? Continental site doesn't know this tire.

But my setup for racing is exactly 2.2" XKing RS in front tubeless and 2.0" race king supersonic rear with michelin latex tube. I have also 2.0" race king RS. 
2.2" xking is quite small, so 2.0" RK is good match, 2.2" RK is way too big for me. Much bigger than 2.2" xking. 
2.2 RK and 2.2Xking sealed very vell with stans, but absolutely no success with 2.0" race kings. 

I am very satisfied with 2.2" XK in front - with grip and speed but i'm looking for good rear tire for tubeless setup. Should be fast rolling and below 550gr, 2.0-2.1" size, comparable grip with RK-s.

I have used 2.2XK in front and 2.25 schwalbe Furious Fred TLR in rear. Quite fast and good in dry but FF has absolutely terrible grip in mud.


----------



## Turveyd (Sep 30, 2007)

I get on just fine with RK2.2 and 2.0 in the rear for mud, resist the urge to run them soft, whack some pressure in them and you'll be surprised how they handle mud just fine.

Only other tire worth considering is the Ralph, do they do a 2.1.


----------



## rfxc (Oct 18, 2004)

Good checking my research. I appreciate the advice folks. I had been considering these tires on ebay. Oddly, the auction titel says they are "Protection" in size 2.0 but the pictures sure don't include any reference to "Protection" version.

(2) Continental Race King Protection 26x2.0 Tires Pair | eBay

Continental Race King Folding Tire Protection 26 x 2.0 | eBay


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

I like the Continental Race King Supersonic 26 x 2.2 tires so much that I put them on all four of my bikes.

On eBay recently, I bought a pair of virtually-new Continental X-King Racesport 26 x 2.4 tires, and put them on this Klein Adroit Pro.




























The biggest surprise with the X-King Racesport 2.4s is how similar they are to the Race King Supersonic 2.2s. They have the same soft ride and seem virtually as responsive. On the street there's just a bit more vibration, and you wouldn't want to corner as hard as you can with the Race Kings on pavement, but their additional traction off-road make them exceptional, especially on surfaces like fine gravel and wet grass.


----------



## PainkillerSPE (Feb 15, 2009)

I have had horrible luck with my X-king Protection tires. They will not hold air no matter how much sealant I put in them. I can get them to seal up fine but as soon as I go for a ride a bunch of tiny holes open up in the side walls and the tire goes flat. 

I have taken them off the bike after an incident today at a race. I jumped a pretty good size table into a gully and when I landed it was a terrible time to find out the tire had nearly flatted. Needless to say I was flung into the ground after the tire gave out from under me and was lucky to not have broken my neck or my collar bone. The bad thing is that I just added fresh sealant a week ago

If you run tubes these tires would probably be awesome.


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

PainkillerSPE said:


> If you run tubes, these tires would probably be awesome.


I do, and they are.

Also, in my earlier post I forgot to mention the noticable improvement in braking over the Race King Supersonic.


----------



## singletrkmind (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm liking the looks and sounds of this tire, trying to get an idea of the width on the 2.4 though. I'm currently running a WTB Weirwolf on the front. Can anyone compare the width to that tire for me?

Are you folks running 2.4 front and back? wondering if 2.2 in rear would be better for speed. I'm running a wolverine 2.1 on the rear now.

Thanks!


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

Pictures of tire widths being measured are halfway down page 16.


----------



## singletrkmind (Feb 20, 2007)

awesome, thanks! didn't have time to go through the whole thread.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

singletrkmind said:


> Are you folks running 2.4 front and back? wondering if 2.2 in rear would be better for speed. I'm running a wolverine 2.1 on the rear now.


Race King 2.2 makes a great light, fast rolling rear. Complements an X-King 2.4 front nicely.


----------



## Adrianoo (Sep 29, 2011)

Anyone know where I can get Race King 29er's in Supersonic/Race Sport versions?
The Continental iPad app mentions that they are available, but I can't find anyone who stocks them


----------



## a2gtinut (May 23, 2007)

Adrianoo said:


> Anyone know where I can get Race King 29er's in Supersonic/Race Sport versions?
> The Continental iPad app mentions that they are available, but I can't find anyone who stocks them


website does not show them.


----------



## Adrianoo (Sep 29, 2011)

Yeah, I know. Take a look at the iPad app.


----------



## a2gtinut (May 23, 2007)

what is iPad .
I think there must be mistake since the NEW For 2012 does not show any 29er tire.


----------



## Adrianoo (Sep 29, 2011)

Here's a screen shot from the Conti iPad app.
(Sorry, I can't embed it properly, MTBR requires that I have >10 posts under my belt first...I currently only have 7.

www
.
stationst
.
com
/Stuff/RaceKing.jpg


----------



## Adrianoo (Sep 29, 2011)

Alright. I'm a 10+ poster now. Good for me.
Here's the image from my iPad showing that Conti are making a RaceSport and ProTection version of the Race King 29. Both with BlackChili.

Anyone know where we can buy these?


----------



## girlscantell (Oct 19, 2008)

BUMP. I'd like to buy these, as well. Any info? Distributor?


----------



## Adrianoo (Sep 29, 2011)

Bump^2


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

since your in the x king thread not the huge race king one. bike24.com now have 29er xking 2.2 racesport available. rk not in stock yet.


----------



## pbbreath (Dec 3, 2008)

2.2 X-King + 2.2 Trail King = Amazing


----------



## TORQ (Apr 10, 2011)

I've got 2.2 Xking RS front and rear mounted on Stan's Flow rims. Best balance of speed vs traction I have found in a tire so far... I'm very happy. I'm thinking of trying a set of 2.4's to get extra volume (rim hit protection) but I'm going to wear out this set first.


----------



## singletrkmind (Feb 20, 2007)

Anyone know if the 2012 version of this tire is sealing / holding air better than previous versions?


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

I was hoping someone could measure the X-King 29x2.2 Racesport 2012 casing width?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

I've got a std folding and it's probably narrower than the 26" racesport. But I think the std folding always are? Certainly no wider. Much narrower than a Ra Ra 2.25. Did a run back to back against a Ra Ra and I could push the Ra Ra harder. From my experience with the 26" racesport, it was probably due to the hard compound on std RK.

I measured the 29er std folding and it's 145mm bead to bead when laid flat.From memory, I think that's very similar to 26"?


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

pbbreath said:


> 2.2 X-King + 2.2 Trail King = Amazing


I can't get my TK 2.2 to seal it's sidewalls... gotta be the worse tire I've ran into - like swiss cheese! can't go tubeless


----------



## madskatingcow (May 23, 2006)

gvs_nz said:


> I measured the 29er std folding and it's 145mm bead to bead when laid flat.From memory, I think that's very similar to 26"?


Well, I measured a while ago :

a) the X-King 26x2.2 Racesport : width bead to bead : 141 mm, weight 496g

b) the X-King 26x2.4 Racesport : width bead to bead : 160 mm, weight 576 - 586g (weighed 5 tires)

So it seems like the 29" version is a little taller. Did you measure new or used tires (I measured new tires) ?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

New tire,but it would have been aired up a couple of days. It would have stretched a bit.The std folding casing doesn't look like it would ever stretch as much as a racesport casing. it looks like it is very close in size either way. I doubt you would notice 5mm extra casing width.


----------



## pow77 (Aug 5, 2010)

Been looking to get a set of X-king 2.4 RS to go on my new hope/flow wheelset. I can get them on sale at the moment, but I also like the wtb bronson race, has anyone tried both these and can give me a comparison? They are priced similar. I can also get some race king ss on sale as well! too many hard decisions. thought i might get a race king to throw on rear when trails are dry and fast. also read bronsons may be easier to set up tubeless? would be my first tubeless set up if i go down that road.
Cheers.


----------



## kroe (Mar 30, 2009)

If you are running flow rims and X kings,,, either you are way over rimmed or way under tired. X Kings are not high on traction or durability of sidewalls. They are a light duty tire. Flows are heavy duty.


----------



## pow77 (Aug 5, 2010)

kroe said:


> If you are running flow rims and X kings,,, either you are way over rimmed or way under tired. X Kings are not high on traction or durability of sidewalls. They are a light duty tire. Flows are heavy duty.


I have a few sets of tires and was looking for a lighter and faster rolling tire for when I need it.


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

Pow77,

I have tried using the XK Protections on my Flows in a tubeless setup, and tore the sidewall within the first week. They also had very porous sidewalls, so getting them stay inflated in a tubeless setup was a nightmare. Its a good tyre, but if your going to use Conti's tubeless, I think you need to use the proper tubeless variety.


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

Van Cuz said:


> Pow77,
> 
> I have tried using the XK Protections on my Flows in a tubeless setup, and tore the sidewall within the first week. They also had very porous sidewalls, so getting them stay inflated in a tubeless setup was a nightmare. Its a good tyre, but if your going to use Conti's tubeless, I think you need to use the proper tubeless variety.


I have a tubeless Mountain King and haven't had an issue with it. For general trail use, the XK is a better compromise between grip and rolling resistance than the MK.


----------



## pow77 (Aug 5, 2010)

Thanks van cuz
Sounds lke its not a good first tubeless option, may stick with tubes. Which should make it easier to change tires when needed for different conditions. 
How you like the flow rims? Mine are not on my bike yet!


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

My set of XK Protection 2.4 works just fine with Flows. Easy to get seated with a floor pump. Didn't need any tricks like inflating with a tube, using soapy water etc.
At first, it sealed just ok to hold air for a ride, but wouldn't stay inflated over night. After couple rides it sealed enough to hold air no worse than other tires of similar weight and volume.
Haven't ridden them much yet, but so far no issues.


----------



## pow77 (Aug 5, 2010)

shapirus said:


> My set of XK Protection 2.4 works just fine with Flows. Easy to get seated with a floor pump. Didn't need any tricks like inflating with a tube, using soapy water etc.
> At first, it sealed just ok to hold air for a ride, but wouldn't stay inflated over night. After couple rides it sealed enough to hold air no worse than other tires of similar weight and volume.
> Haven't ridden them much yet, but so far no issues.


Thanks Shapirus, just bought the race sport version as they were on sale (the store having sale didnt have the protection version). will give them a go with tubes and if happy look at going tubeless with a protection version later. So need to hit the trails soon!!


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

shapirus said:


> My set of XK Protection 2.4 works just fine with Flows. Easy to get seated with a floor pump. Didn't need any tricks like inflating with a tube, using soapy water etc.
> At first, it sealed just ok to hold air for a ride, but wouldn't stay inflated over night. After couple rides it sealed enough to hold air no worse than other tires of similar weight and volume.
> Haven't ridden them much yet, but so far no issues.


I must've got a bad batch then, because I had sealant oozing out of the sidewalls all over the tyre, and they only way I could get them to stay inflated was to paint the inside if the sidewall with sealant, let it dry, then mount.


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

pow77 said:


> Thanks van cuz
> Sounds lke its not a good first tubeless option, may stick with tubes. Which should make it easier to change tires when needed for different conditions.
> How you like the flow rims? Mine are not on my bike yet!


The flows have been great. I have put them through some serious abuse and there still true and without dents.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

Van Cuz said:


> ...the only way I could get them to stay inflated was to paint the inside if the sidewall with sealant, let it dry, then mount.


Tell me more about this ? I've got (and returned) 2 different Conti TK 2.2 that would just not seal on the sidewalls (bead sealed quickly) - I tried stans for a week laying the tie flat but it just wouldn't seal. Do you use stans sealant and paint the tire to dry ? it seems too thin to stay....


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Van Cuz said:


> I must've got a bad batch then, because I had sealant oozing out of the sidewalls all over the tyre, and they only way I could get them to stay inflated was to paint the inside if the sidewall with sealant, let it dry, then mount.


I forgot to mention that I had also washed off mold release agent from the inside of the tires before I went installing them. That could've helped to seal them faster.


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

adumesny said:


> Tell me more about this ? I've got (and returned) 2 different Conti TK 2.2 that would just not seal on the sidewalls (bead sealed quickly) - I tried stans for a week laying the tie flat but it just wouldn't seal. Do you use stans sealant and paint the tire to dry ? it seems too thin to stay....


Yeah, pretty much what your thinking, but it took a few days, and a lot of perseverance. It's not something I want to do again. Even the sidewalls on my Lightweigth Maxxis tyres weren't as porous as the Conti's I got.


----------



## Van Cuz (Jun 24, 2010)

shapirus said:


> I forgot to mention that I had also washed off mold release agent from the inside of the tires before I went installing them. That could've helped to seal them faster.


What did you use for this?


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

Van Cuz said:


> Yeah, pretty much what your thinking, but it took a few days, and a lot of perseverance. It's not something I want to do again. Even the sidewalls on my Lightweigth Maxxis tyres weren't as porous as the Conti's I got.


Ok, so it's not just me. Conti are out tubeless... the Conti TK 2.4 that came on my bike keeps the air ok (I can see a bit of foam using soapy water on the sidewalls) but I don't know what they did to get it working (might be thicker wall to start with). the TK 2.2 are swiss cheese. Awful.

Kenda El moco 2.1 and 2.35 are a b*tch to seal the bead, but at least you can do it and the sidewalls never leaked. My only other tire were Crossmark LUST 2.1 but those are UST and super thick sidewalls - kinda heavy for such a tiny tire and knobs, and not the grip I need.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

Van Cuz said:


> What did you use for this?


water, soap and a stiff brush.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

MK II 2.4 & 2.2... Protection. Just mounted a set to UST rims (Shimano 21mm wide). Sealed up first try. No leaks at all. One tiny pinhole in the 2.2. Sealed up as soon as I sloshed Stan's in the area. 2.4 had zero pinholes. Sidewalls were pretty stout when I was mounting. Beads were nice and thick. Some of the easiest tires I've had seal up right away on the first try. I used 2.5 scoops in each tire.

No I just need to finish up my build so I can ride em!


----------



## svalgis (Mar 5, 2012)

Can I use XK Protection 26x2.4 with my Alexrims 19mm rims? Or should I stick to 2.2?
I have a pair of Schwalbe NN 2.25 on there atm.

(I'm using tubes and will continue to do so for the time being)

edit: Sorry, just found the measurements on page 16, good stuff. My NN are about 53mm so XK 2.4 shouldn't be a problem I guess? Maybe I'd be better off running 2.2 in the rear anyway though? I live in Sweden and ride mostly singletrack - flat, up and down on packed dirt and quite a lot of rocks and roots.


----------



## OLx6 (Feb 5, 2011)

The 2.2 is not a very big volume tire. I would suggest the X-king 2.4 on the rear or a 2.2 Race King. The RK hooks up very well on the rear and is very fast.


----------



## svalgis (Mar 5, 2012)

I've considered the RK on the rear, but I think I'll sacrifice some rolling resistance for better mud clearance and grip with XK. I think I'll appreciate it, especially on the climbs.

I guess 2.4 on the front too is the way to go?


----------



## k_star (Feb 19, 2010)

conti x-king 29x2,2" racesport on a notubes ztr crest (inner width 21 mm):

casing: 51,8 mm
profile: 50 mm


----------



## girlscantell (Oct 19, 2008)

I bought some 29er 2.2 X-king's and tried to set them up tubeless. The moment I pumped them up, sealant shot out of multiple holes in the sidewalls of both tires. These were the brand new 2012 versions. They'll hold air for about an hour.


----------



## singletrkmind (Feb 20, 2007)

bummer, I was stoked about these tires but wanted to try tubeless as well. Guess I will be looking in another direction.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

girlscantell said:


> I bought some 29er 2.2 X-king's and tried to set them up tubeless. The moment I pumped them up, sealant shot out of multiple holes in the sidewalls of both tires. These were the brand new 2012 versions. They'll hold air for about an hour.


That was my experience with Continental Trail King 2.2 (black chilly, made in germany) with 2 tires as well (~640g each). Very porous sidewalls I couldn't seal after trying for days. Horrible!
Returned to amazon (thank god for that). My front TK 2.4 was magically sealed by previous owner and works great.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

adumesny said:


> That was my experience with Continental Trail King 2.2 (black chilly, made in germany) with 2 tires as well (~640g each). Very porous sidewalls I couldn't seal after trying for days. Horrible!
> Returned to amazon (thank god for that). My front TK 2.4 was magically sealed by previous owner and works great.


Oh boy... I have one of these tires in the mail to me right now. The 2.2 Trail Kings at 640g... I've sealed up three of these successfully before. I hope this one doesn't fail me...


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

danhasdrums said:


> Oh boy... I have one of these tires in the mail to me right now. The 2.2 Trail Kings at 640g... I've sealed up three of these successfully before. I hope this one doesn't fail me...


Let me know either way. if it seals the side walls (bead isn't much a problem) what is your secret ? I've read afterward some people had to paint the side with stan and let it dry for a day open before mounting. I assumed that since I could inflate them, the stan glue would seal the sides by rotating the wheel sideway and letting them rest flat, but 3-4 days of that didn't prevent complete deflation overnight and the rim sealed fine. porous sidewalls...Aggrrr...


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

adumesny said:


> Let me know either way. if it seals the side walls (bead isn't much a problem) what is your secret ? I've read afterward some people had to paint the side with stan and let it dry for a day open before mounting. I assumed that since I could inflate them, the stan glue would seal the sides by rotating the wheel sideway and letting them rest flat, but 3-4 days of that didn't prevent complete deflation overnight and the rim sealed fine. porous sidewalls...Aggrrr...


Did you try to wash the inner surface of the tire with some rubbing alcohol or soap and water? This removes mold release agent and seems to help sealant stick better.

Also, how much sealant did you use?


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

I'll definitely provide a report when the tire comes in and I throw it on there. I have no secret as of yet, just pop it on, shake it around and lay it on its side when it's really stubborn...


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

adumesny said:


> That was my experience with Continental Trail King 2.2 (black chilly, made in germany) with 2 tires as well (~640g each). Very porous sidewalls I couldn't seal after trying for days. Horrible!
> Returned to amazon (thank god for that). My front TK 2.4 was magically sealed by previous owner and works great.


MK II's (both 2.4 and 2.2), in Protection version, sealed up quickly with no issues on first try for me... Not sure if it has to do with the MK II being a newer design vs the TK (aka old Rubber Queen), or if due to the Protection sidewalls... either way, MK II are very tubeless friendly...


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

In my experience with continental tires (race king ss 2.2, mtn king protection 2.2 and x king race sport 2.4) protection seals up very easily, ss can be incredible difficult and race sport is close to ss but a little easier. The one thing I have found that works really well is to stretch the tire by either riding it with a tube or doing the initial set up and ride up the street and back then do all of the shaking. The ss and race sport tires seem to really stretch. I think that opens them up for more leaks so if you just bench seal them you will have to reseal them if it makes sense. At least it works for me.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

shapirus said:


> Did you try to wash the inner surface of the tire with some rubbing alcohol or soap and water? This removes mold release agent and seems to help sealant stick better.
> 
> Also, how much sealant did you use?


I didn't know to do that. that might explain why I couldn't see any sealant stick to the walls after a few days of trying.

I had plenty of sealant (about 1.5 of the little cup) and the rims beads did take a little work to seal (as usual) but did fine.I though maybe my stans sealant had gone bad, but the more I inflate them the more I could see sidewalls leaking like cray (using soapy water on the outside) which I've never ran into before...

I would liek to swap to TK2.2 which are light (too light I suppose) and big volume, but those porous sidewalls makes me wonder if it worth the hassle... Specialized ground control 2.3 on the back are light and probably don't have this issue (I don't see any glue on in inside walls unlike my front TK2.4)


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

Has anyone put the 2.4's on an Anthem?
There not a great deal bigger than the 2.25 nobby nics i have on at the moment..
Height 50mm width 53mm


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Goldigger said:


> Has anyone put the 2.4's on an Anthem?
> There not a great deal bigger than the 2.25 nobby nics i have on at the moment..
> Height 50mm width 53mm


barely fits


----------

