# Light 2.4 tire - Conti Mountain King



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

Just tried out the Continental Mountain King 2.4 Supersonic. It weighed in at 530g on the digital scale, measures a full 2.4 at the edge of the tread and has plenty of volume. Durability is obviously compromised, but the initial traction and rolling resistance were great. If you're not doing big drops, riding in really sharp rocky terrain, or prone to pinch flats, this tire looks very promising. The Protection and standard versions are also very light. Traction was great in mud, slime and snow, and they handled some rough rocky moves without complaint. Shed mud very well. $36 per tire.:thumbsup:


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

Nice. You'll have to report back on durability though.


----------



## newking (Nov 6, 2007)

can they be run on a UST rim with Stan's?


----------



## dreednya (Mar 9, 2004)

Yup they can be run tubeless. I am currently running the 2.4 Protection versions 'ghetto tubeless' style with no problems. Grip is awesome and rolling resistance feels really low for such a big tyre.


----------



## elephant (Mar 21, 2006)

I have one that weighs 529 and I plan to run it tubeless. Supposedly they are a little to get the sidewalls to seal but then they are good.

We'll see.


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

dreednya said:


> Yup they can be run tubeless. I am currently running the 2.4 Protection versions 'ghetto tubeless' style with no problems. Grip is awesome and rolling resistance feels really low for such a big tyre.


I have found that all Conti tires work well as tubeless as long as you use the Protection versions. It's worth the extra grams. Most conti tires have respectable weights even in the Protection versions. With non-Protection versions of Conti tires I have had two problems: 1. Difficulty sealing, and 2. The sidewalls get weak over time and start burping air or rolling off the rim. I can't wait to try the Mountain King Protection. It looks like a good option for my SS bike for the winter (in California).


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

My 2.4 Protection version tipped the scale at 780g.


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

MileHighMark said:


> My 2.4 Protection version tipped the scale at 780g.


ouch. Conti says it should be 670grams. ouch. Unless yours is the UST version?


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

noshortcuts said:


> ouch. Conti says it should be 670grams. ouch. Unless yours is the UST version?


No, not UST. I'll re-weigh it, though.


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

I think Conti's weights are off on some websites. Phattire lists the Supersonic at 530, the standard at 670 and the Protection at 750 all in 2.4.


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

Interesting, I got the numbers from Cont's own site which has worked for me with other tires:
http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/ti mountainking.shtml

Mountain King 2.2 Fold 26x2.2 580g 
Mountain King 2.2 ProTection 26x2.2 580g 
Mountain King 2.2 Supersonic 26x2.2 460g 
Mountain King 2.2 UST 26x2.2 700g

Mountain King 2.4 Fold 26x2.4 670g 
Mountain King 2.4 ProTection 26x2.4 670g 
Mountain King 2.4 Supersonic 26x2.4 530g 
Mountain King 2.4 UST 26x2.4 800g


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

MileHighMark said:


> My 2.4 Protection version tipped the scale at 780g.


auch... mine came in at 645g...I even have 2 wire bead 2.4 "plain" MKs, and both are under 700g


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

crisillo said:


> auch... mine came in at 645g...I even have 2 wire bead 2.4 "plain" MKs, and both are under 700g


that's more like it. I can live with 645 for a 2.4 tire!!


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

OK, I pulled the tire off the wheel, and plopped it onto the scale. 780g.

This is the 26" x 2.4" version with the folding bead and Protection sidewall. No indication of UST on the casing or hot-stamp.


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

MileHighMark said:


> OK, I pulled the tire off the wheel, and plopped it onto the scale. 780g.
> 
> This is the 26" x 2.4" version with the folding bead and Protection sidewall. No indication of UST on the casing or hot-stamp.


I guess you saw above that Crisillo's tire came in at 645 grams. I've never seen such a huge variance from one same tire to another (20 grams, yes, but 135grams!, that's wild).

Besides your's being a boat anchor (compared to claimed weight), how do you like it?


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

I haven't ridden it yet, but I'm hoping to give it a try this weekend (weather permitting).


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Any updates? I'm looking at these for my FS bike.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Just received a pair of 2.4" Mountain King ProTection tires and they weighed in at 720gms and 730gms, pretty much the same as the 2.35" Nevegal Stick-E tires they were replacing (ironically, in order to save 50gms a tire, the 670gm spec'd weight seemed attractive).


----------



## elephant (Mar 21, 2006)

crisillo said:


> auch... mine came in at 645g...I even have 2 wire bead 2.4 "plain" MKs, and both are under 700g


Where did you buy yours? Got any pics of the label?

I would use these at 645 but as another poster pointed out, at 730 grams, Nevegals are an easy choice.


----------



## Patriot222 (Dec 16, 2007)

That is a huge variance in weight between samples. I've found that Kenda tires seem to be fairly consistent between individual weights. The other thing that I like about Kenda is that they often overstate their figures and often the tire is lighter than spec. My last four Kendas were all below weight spec by 2-6%

By the way cutthroat, I really like those pics. The 1st and 3rd pics look like tire manufacturer ads. Great color of mud you've got over there.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*MountainKing 2,2": 482g*

my 2,2" MK Supersonic weighed 482g. i just weighed one i got this past spring in Tuscany /Italy. i happened to get these for free as Conti was doing their press-release in that location just days prior to my annual biking holidays. so there were a few of these samples left to try out.... no search for the lightest samples. as you can see below the german BIKE magazine weighed a sample at 452g during their comparison test.

and just in case someone is interested in the rollinresistance you'll find the numbers of that german comparison test below...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

And the German Bike Magazine has their 2.4" MK Protection version at 746gms so I guess I shouldn't complain about the 720 and 730 gms weights. This must be the downside of _handbuilt_ in Germany, the hand building process seems to produce some pretty wide tolerances in weight.

Are the knobs on the Supersonic version as large and spaced the same? Quite often the lighter versions have shorter knobs and wider spacing. It's not easy to tell from the pictures if the tread pattern is more open or shorter than on the Protection version.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Has anyone mounted the Mountain King 2.2 or Speed King 2.3 tubeless yet? Riding impressions? Protection or Supersonic. I'm thinking of getting the Protection versions but would like to hear about the durability of the Supersonics. My terrain consists of forrest soil, roots, mud with some rocks. Hardtail and FS bikes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*i had both...*



JaLove said:


> Has anyone mounted the Mountain King 2.2 or Speed King 2.3 tubeless yet? Riding impressions? Protection or Supersonic. I'm thinking of getting the Protection versions but would like to hear about the durability of the Supersonics. My terrain consists of forrest soil, roots, mud with some rocks. Hardtail and FS bikes.


i mounted both mentioned tires "Tubeless" using the Eclipse Tubelesskit

i rode the MK 2,2"Supersonic after my Nobby Nic lost all its outer knobs . the soil in the italian Tuscany is quite abrasive and it seems my agressive cornering was too much for the 2,1" Nobby Nics. the Mountain King was a nice replacement but i just don't like tires that don't roll fast. so as soon as i got home i took them off.

i also mounted the 2,3" Speed King Supersonics and hoped for some cushion on my full-rigid winterbike. these tires stink! i don't like them in any way. at first i thought they would be ok but cornering hard is almost impossible as the tiny, soft sideknobs will fold and make you slide. these are very tricky to lean your bike!! and i didn't get the cushy ride i was hoping for. i found them to be springy like a full rubber ball. i tried all kinds of pressures but the ride was extremely hoppy and my knuckles would get white from holding thight onto the handlebar...no good at all!! i then re-mounted my 1,8" Nobby Nics and these feel like a suspension on my bike. strange but true. the tiny tires work MUCH better on my rigid bike. seems the self-dampening characteristics are much better than that of the Contis. i preferred the 2,1" Speedkings over the 2,3" but these also don't corner well.

BUT worst of all, the 2,3" SK seemed to disintegrate after just about 100km of use. you could see the carcass shine through on almost every knob. see picture below! maybe it's just because i had very light samples: 410g for a 2,3" is indeed VERY light. that's what made me try them out but i don't like them. anyone looking for 100km old, 2,3" , 410g Speedkings?? i have a pair for sale...


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Wow. That doesn't sound good at all. That guy with the Scott Spark seems to be having good luck with the 2.3 Speed Kings and he seems to ride in conditions similar to mine. Then again, you're conditions in Switzerland look very similar to the Wisconsin stuff I deal with too.



nino said:


> i mounted both mentioned tires "Tubeless" using the Eclipse Tubelesskit
> 
> i rode the MK 2,2"Supersonic after my Nobby Nic lost all its outer knobs . the soil in the italian Tuscany is quite abrasive and it seems my agressive cornering was too much for the 2,1" Nobby Nics. the Mountain King was a nice replacement but i just don't like tires that don't roll fast. so as soon as i got home i took them off.
> 
> ...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

JaLove said:


> Wow. That doesn't sound good at all. That guy with the Scott Spark seems to be having good luck with the 2.3 Speed Kings and he seems to ride in conditions similar to mine. Then again, you're conditions in Switzerland look very similar to the Wisconsin stuff I deal with too.


if you are NOT riding in an agressive manner, braking late and attacking corners...they will be ok. but they definitely lack in sidegrip. the knobs are spaced wide and are very soft which gives you a very vague feeling and abrupt loss of grip. i didn't like them when things got slippery as well. a decent dry-weather tire at best.

what i have around zurich/switzerland is rather smooth soil, no sharp rocks. gravel, clay trails with logs and roots, grass...and it's rather humid so often real tacky. right now everything is frozen and bonehard cause it's over 2 weeks we have sub zero celsius.


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

I agree 100% on the Speed Kings, I was very dissapointed. I have been looking for a large volume light weight tire for hardpack use for a while without any real success. 

Anybody try the Kenda Smallblock 8?


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

*Sb8*



tolleyman said:


> I agree 100% on the Speed Kings, I was very dissapointed. I have been looking for a large volume light weight tire for hardpack use for a while without any real success.
> 
> Anybody try the Kenda Smallblock 8?


Yes, love the wide one the best (Referring to question about Kenda Samllblock 8, NOT Conti). It lasts a long time, gets pretty great traction (especially after a bit of break in), corners well, brakes good (the wider one brakes best), and they have been very light (as advertised), and work well both front and back. I like the widest (2.2"? the best). Also, I am using them converted to tubeless with Stans and while they took some effort to set up, the have held to the rim like glue ever since and can handle low (27-35 lbs) pressure well.


----------



## mafia6 (Sep 30, 2005)

tolleyman said:


> I agree 100% on the Speed Kings, I was very dissapointed. I have been looking for a large volume light weight tire for hardpack use for a while without any real success.
> 
> Anybody try the Kenda Smallblock 8?


i am using the 2.1 sb8 now and its fantastic for my riding...its very weak in the mud though..very fast rolling on hardpack. :thumbsup:

note the my sb8s are not true 2.1 size...it measure more like 2.0...not sure if the bigger sb8s are accurate in size.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

Nino......I have a MK 2.2 super sonic on order, do you think it will be a good front tire with a sid? I will be using Stan's with it


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

noshortcuts.............U say U use a Mountain King SS with stan's?
I was at my LBS for 2 hours today and we couldn't get my new Mountain King SS to in flate at all with Stan's. U have any tips? We couldnt get the bead to seal at all.............held no air. But my Speed King SS sealed perfect!!:shocked:


----------



## zooford (Dec 20, 2006)

did you use a tube to seat one side, take the tube out, and then try to seat the other side?


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

never heard of that........what are the steps to doing that?


----------



## noshortcuts (Nov 29, 2005)

cyclemanpat said:


> noshortcuts.............U say U use a Mountain King SS with stan's?
> I was at my LBS for 2 hours today and we couldn't get my new Mountain King SS to in flate at all with Stan's. U have any tips? We couldnt get the bead to seal at all.............held no air. But my Speed King SS sealed perfect!!:shocked:


No, Sorry for the confusion. I say I use the SmallBlock 8 with Stans. I also say that if I try the Mountain King, it will be the "Protection" version because I find Conti Protection tires work well with Stans.

As far as tips: 1. Install with a tube first to shape the tire and bead. 2. Use more Stans than is called for if you have a thin sidewall that loses air through numerous pinholes. 3. Use soapy water and compressed air (gas station style). (But as I say, I have had problems with some Contis that were not Protection models)


----------



## zooford (Dec 20, 2006)

should be pretty straightforward you just need to be careful. mount the tube + tire as normal and pump the tube up really quite high, until you're sure the bead it seated on the rim. deflate the tube but not too much, enough to the get only oneedge of the tire off. so do that and take out the tube, hopefully now you have 1 side of the bead seated. insert valve stem + stans, inflate with air compressor.

hopefully that makes sense...and works! haha. ive done this twice. im sure there are others here that are more experienced at it.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

ill try that way, makes sense


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

thanks for the info.........I'll give it a go:thumbsup:


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

zooford said:


> did you use a tube to seat one side, take the tube out, and then try to seat the other side?


This gives a 100% hit rate with XT UST rims. Great method.


----------



## Fast1 (Apr 6, 2007)

nino said:


> if you are NOT riding in an agressive manner, braking late and attacking corners...they will be ok. but they definitely lack in sidegrip. the knobs are spaced wide and are very soft which gives you a very vague feeling and abrupt loss of grip. i didn't like them when things got slippery as well. a decent dry-weather tire at best.
> 
> what i have around zurich/switzerland is rather smooth soil, no sharp rocks. gravel, clay trails with logs and roots, grass...and it's rather humid so often real tacky. right now everything is frozen and bonehard cause it's over 2 weeks we have sub zero celsius.


wonder if the different handling is a result of tube vs no-tube mounting?
my speed kings work very well in hard packed snow and ice.

The only time while riding dirt that I felt lack of side grip was when running too low of air pressure.

Also even with some pavement use my tread does not resemble what was displayed in the photo for wear near the center knobs. I have wear but it is only in height of the knob on the rear tire.


----------



## Radical_53 (Nov 22, 2006)

I used these in 2.4 supersonic too, mounted them with Stan's system. To me it's a shame they put the "made in Germany" on these tires. To me, it's not a real "mountain" bike tire. You can use it for anything but mountain biking. Rolling resistance isn't too god, pinch resistance is nearly non existent. Grip is good on gravel, but as bad as a semi slick on wet mud, roots or stones.
Definitely one of the worst tires I rode in the last couple of years.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Is that the Mountain King or Speed King? People have been posting about both, it's hard to keep track.  Even Conti recommends that the Mountain King Supersonic be used by racers in competition only (I read that as needing to have service zones on a 5km lap)


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Radical_53 said:


> I used these in 2.4 supersonic too, mounted them with Stan's system. To me it's a shame they put the "made in Germany" on these tires. To me, it's not a real "mountain" bike tire. You can use it for anything but mountain biking. Rolling resistance isn't too god, pinch resistance is nearly non existent. Grip is good on gravel, but as bad as a semi slick on wet mud, roots or stones.
> Definitely one of the worst tires I rode in the last couple of years.


I agree that traction can be improved in those conditions you mention...but I think expecting pinch resistance from a ultralight supersonic model might be a bit too much...


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

rockyuphill said:


> Even Conti recommends that the Mountain King Supersonic be used by racers in competition only (I read that as needing to have service zones on a 5km lap)


ditto!


----------



## Radical_53 (Nov 22, 2006)

@rockyuphill: Mountain King. I had the Speed King here, but that's really just a tube with knobs 
Talking about competition, well. I'd agree to what Conti says there if it was a 2.0, 2.1 or maybe even 2.2 tire. But do you know a racer that would put 2.4" tires on for a race? 

@crisillo: Very true. I wouldn't expect it to be as "strong" as say a typical freeride, all mountain whatever tire in the 800g range.
But: If they sell a 2.4 and put "mountain" on it, I'd expect that I would be able to ride it off road. And that's not going to work for more than a couple of miles without a serious failure. I had 3-4 fatal tire failures when I rode these thingies with Stan's kit, the first flat on my first run (with a tube) didn't need more than 5 minutes riding.
No, I wasn't riding really bad stuff there. Tracks that I can ride with my hardtail, using 330 Maxxis Flyweight tires with Eclipse, without flats.


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

Well, I am glad to see other agree with me that these tires in general, don't live up to what most of us expected.


----------



## Fast1 (Apr 6, 2007)

tolleyman said:


> Well, I am glad to see other agree with me that these tires in general, don't live up to what most of us expected.


sounds liike you weren't sure of your opinion if you needed others to substantiate it??

If the tires don't work for your ride environment, air pressure range and bike set up why would it make any difference what someone else thought?


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

No, I *am/was* sure of my opinion, it just nice to know that others have my same opinion.


----------



## Fast1 (Apr 6, 2007)

tolleyman said:


> No, I *am/was* sure of my opinion, it just nice to know that others have my same opinion.


I re-read the thread and I only count 1 other than yourself that was diss-satisfied with the Speed King.. that being Nino.

So if one other means "others" in your mind than you must feel really good.

Why don't you post a photo of your bike with your Speed Kings on. Now you have me wondering if you ever even owned them.

Here is mine so you know for sure that I've used them in the elements mentioned. I also run a light weight tube due to the thin sidewall casing to maintain tire structure rather than running tubless. Funny you didn't even mentioned how you had yours mounted up??


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

*Speed King on single speed*

Yea, that is funny thanks for pointing that out. Running Conti tube.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Conti Mountain King weight clarification*

Continental site is wrong on the weight. I have looked at 6 different USA tire websites and they are all consistent. No... Continentals tires do not differ by 100+ Grams. The only way to buy the Mountain King is in the protection version w/ Black Chilli and Conti even recommends it (Save the Supersonic for race day if you must have it).

The weight of the 2.2 Mountain King Protection w/ Black Chilli (made in Germany) is stated at 620g and the 2.4 in the same model weighs a stated 750g. Hope this helps. (you can also log onto the UK or German Conti sites to verify weights). Cheers.


----------



## Radical_53 (Nov 22, 2006)

Even the Protection does only have the pinch resistence of a Racing Ralph (yes, the semi slick thingy). Had been tested by a magazine here, quite funny 

The weight on the website might be off more than once. Like the Speed King 2.3 seen above? Conti said it's 500g. I've never seen one that heavy, most of them were somewhere around 420-430g, some even below.


----------



## nic92516 (Oct 9, 2006)

*Mountain King 2.2 Protection*

I was given some MK 2.2 protections for Christmas. The weight on the UK site states 580g and mine came in at 580 and 581. The scales are accurate to about 5g so I can live with that. I tried to mount them tubeless straight out of the packet but couldn't inflate them even with a compressor. I put them on with tubes @45psi for 24 hours and then tried again. Tried with just one to start with, got it seated first time. 2 scoops of Stans and set about the task of sealing. It was still bubbling (dish soap) out of about 20 spots each side after about an hour. Dropped 20psi the first night, did the side to side shaking thing again and let it rest and took them out for 2 hour ride. Over the ride it lost about 5psi. After each ride I've been taking the wheel off and shaking it from side to side and leaving it flat on a bucket overnight (alternate sides) and it finally seems to have to sealed. Now to do the other one 

I'm running them at 35psi and found that the tyre rolls really quickly and clears the mud exceptionally well (very useful in the Uk as it hasn't stopped raining all January!) Not had to tackle any rock gardens yet but they seem ok over roots. So far put just over 100km on them and they appear to be wearing well. I'd love to give the exact width but lack any vernier calipers.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

nic92516.......I have the same problem, tried to seal my MK's right out of the box and they wouldnt inflate at all. I need to try the tube thing first. So I just install the tires on my rims with a tube inflate to 45psi and let sit over night. Then take tubes out and try to inflate? Do I take tires off also when I take tubes out? I use standard rim strips, so after the tubes are taken out, i still need to in stall the rim strip.


----------



## nic92516 (Oct 9, 2006)

cyclemanpat, To be honest I was not going to run them tubless after not being able to inflate them but I really like not having to fix punctures trailside!! When I pumped them up with the tube in, there was a nice load pop as the bead seated. It also appeared to stretch the bead slightly as when I first mounted them I had to use a tyre lever to get them on but could just about do it by hand when I put the rim strips back in. I'm using Stans Rim strips so I took the tyre and tube off to put that back in, they are on DT swiss X430 Rims with the original rim tape.

I think that it's to do with the width of the rim as I also tried to mount them ghetto tubeless on Sun Ditch Witch rim, which are much wider than the DT swiss rims, the Stan rims strips weren't wide enough. It inflated first time with a floor pump. That was when I decided to put them back on the X430 rims with tubes in to see if it would work after 24 hours. Even after 24 hours, I could only mount it using a compressor. I did try to do it with a floor pump but gave up after contemplating what the neighbours would think about all the huffing and puffing that was coming from the garage.;


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

but you did get them to mount and eventually seal on your DT rims......correct? Have you ridden them a few times? They work well, no burping or falling off the rim?


----------



## nic92516 (Oct 9, 2006)

Yes, they are seated and sealed on the DT rims, seated 1st time with compressor (after the 24 hour wait!), complete sealing took several attempts over a couple of days. No burping or falling off the rims at 35psi. Been fine on rides (5rides for 130ish Km total, since I put them on)

I did test trying to burp the tyre using my hand but had to get pressure down to below 20psi before I could do it.

Good Luck.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

cool...I will give it a go:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

cyclemanpat said:


> no burping or falling off the rim?


i have mentioned that i used them with Eclipse Tubelesskit last spring. no problems.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

my MK's are the supersonic version, I hope they will install with stans. I have a Speedking supersonic on the rear, it installed with Stan's first try..........the MK wouldn't mount at all. I will try the "tube first" method and see if that works


----------



## elephant (Mar 21, 2006)

Here is mine. Just mounted it yesterday and rode in the snow last night. This is my first time with tubeless - I used a Stan's kit. Seems to work nicely.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

elephant....are your MK's the protection or supersonics?


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Mountain King Protection 2.2 for $42.95*

FYI - I just ordered a Conti MK 2.2 in the protection version for $42.95 from JensonUSA. They agreed to a price match from BikeTiresDirect.com (shipping is extra of course)

here is the link (which vendor to use is up to you): http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=COMKP&buttonAction=ci_COMKP

That is almost $20.00 cheaper than ANYONE on the web! I ordered w/ JensonUSA only because I am unfamiliar with the other vendor.

(Conti Vertical Pro's in protection are available for $28.00). Cheers!


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

I had SpeedKing 2.3s, which look pretty similar to these MtnKings.

This is one of the few times I see eye to eye with Nino. They Stunk!

Knobs are too small, too soft, spaced too far apart, and would fold when corning hard.

Two thumbs down on the tread pattern!


----------



## jacko69 (Apr 5, 2007)

*Mountain King SS 2.4*

I've been running the MK 2.4 SS as tubeless for a 2 weeks now.

They were difficult to mount initially, but when I ran with tubes for a few days prior, it wasn't as hard to get the second bead seat - you certainly need a compressor though.

I'm quite pleased with the performance, even compared to the Nevegal 2.1s (tubed) that I was using before. These seem to drift more predicably & are a lot of fun. I have had a piece of glass slice in between the tread blocks and the latex sprayed out. It would only hold about 20psi because if the size (say 2mm cut) so I had to use a patch to repair it.

The sidewalls have been fine to date, so no issues there. Having said that, my front tyre holds pressure, but the rear for some reason is losing pressure over a week & needs more air each weekend. There seems to be a few micro bubbles of air forming in a couple of sections of the sidewall when I put the tyre into water to test it. I guess it's enough to lose pressure over a 1 week period. Perhaps I just need to spend more time shaking the latex against the sidewalls.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

finally got to try my MK supersonic out sunday. I put it on the rear and did a nice 3 hour trail ride and loved it. The trails have many steep, shorter climbs that had patches of ice, I was able to climb everything! Hooked-up great....very good grip. I give the MK 2 thumbs up:thumbsup:


----------



## Burtonrider250 (Aug 31, 2006)

I'm having a tough time deciding over the 2.2 and 2.4's. How much of a difference can I expect with the rolling resistance between these 2 sizes?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

I would say that the rolling resistance difference will be minimal... the pressure on your tires could have a bigger impact...


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

As long as you use the Supersonic or ProTection versions with the Black Chili rubber, it really does seem to have a nice combo of traction and low rolling resistance.


----------

