# Continental Rubber Queen UST reviews??



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

Haven't heard too much about these yet but am very curious in trying them. i want a midweight tire for FR/DH that mount up tubeless and these seem to fit the bill. The other competitors would be the Schwalbe Big Betty but they are hard to find.

The main problem i would have is frame clearance. i would put it on my canfield jedi and it has limited rear wheel clearance. anyone riding them that could coment on how tall they are? maybe even measure them?

I have run 2.5 high rollers and 2.5 intense 909's on the rear with no problem so as long as they are less tall then those im ok. width isn't a problem just height.

So im interested in what everyone thinks about them and how they are holding up. 1100 grams seems perfect for light DH/FR.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

i forgot to mention ill be using them with 823's so hopefully that helps.


----------



## godfather (Jun 28, 2009)

I'm interested in the same tire, same bike, on CB Opium wheels. I know that the 2.4 RB is pretty big, in volume and height. I'm pretty sure they are a bit bigger than the Minion 2.5.


----------



## Uncle Cliffy (Jul 7, 2006)

Can't really answer, but if the size is similar to the Der Kaiser it'll be tight.


----------



## Stalk (May 24, 2005)

Size is similar to Maxxis 2.7 (bigger than 2.5) in width. It is a big tire for 2.4. I run it on 823 and Socom have just enough clearance to not worry about.

Height-wise it seems the same as Maxxix 2.5 DHR I'm running.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

Stalk said:


> Size is similar to Maxxis 2.7 (bigger than 2.5) in width. It is a big tire for 2.4. I run it on 823 and Socom have just enough clearance to not worry about.
> 
> Height-wise it seems the same as Maxxix 2.5 DHR I'm running.


nice, thanks.

is there any way you could measure the distance from the top of the rim to the top of the tire? just a straight measurement not curving around it or anything.

the width is no problem its only the height. the 909's are about as close as i can get. they are 2 1/4 inches tall. so any taller than that would be too much.

also any reviews on them? how do they compare to the minions? ill be using it for FR and DH tubeless on 823's so your input would help alot


----------



## Ouroboros (Jan 20, 2008)

I just got the 2.2's(non-tubeless), which are already massive!! Much taller than the Nevegal...Here are some good pics of the 2.4 I found in another thread:


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

Measurements are on shiggys tires site. 

Rubber lasts longer than maxxis super tacky. The sidewall is strong. 

Seal up without any stans, excellent fit with mavic ust.

The Rubber Queen is great tire. 

There is a mtbr review by pastajet. If you search the wheel and tires forum will come up with a 1-2 other threads. Some feel it is the best tire they ever used. 

For me I need to climb to the top in order to ride dh trails so it is much easier to pedal over minions/high rollers. and they grip really well yet are NOT so thin (sidewalls) they roll over and rip shred.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

thanks,

the height said 57.7 and when i measured my 909's it is within 1mm of each other. i wonder what rim they tried it on though. wouldn't a wider rim make it lower and a flatter profile while a skinnier rim will make it taller and more rounded?

with it being this close it would be cool if someone here could measure it themselves, especially if they have 823's

looking to place an order for something soon though. i miss tubeless


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

I use the 2.4 non-ust RQ for a front tire, it is the best I've used on the trails I've used it on here in CO, including Sol Vista and Keystone. I compared it directly to a dhf 3c on a friends bike and it was a lot better on that trail, which was loose over hardpack, decomposed rocky soil. It is bigger than the 2.5 Maxxis. Sidewalls are plenty strong for a front tire, but it's so big I haven't tried it on the rear.


----------



## Stalk (May 24, 2005)

I'm not sure I have tools to do precise measurement. But as far as review goes, I commented here in few other threads that it's best tire I have tried. 
It doesn't giveup anything to DHR with soft compound but lighter and seems stronger too. RQ roll much faster as well so I have it on rear. I pinched a hole riding N* and Stans sealed it very well in few seconds after application (tire was dry when I flatted it)


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

Stalk said:


> I'm not sure I have tools to do precise measurement. But as far as review goes, I commented here in few other threads that it's best tire I have tried.
> It doesn't giveup anything to DHR with soft compound but lighter and seems stronger too. RQ roll much faster as well so I have it on rear. I pinched a hole riding N* and Stans sealed it very well in few seconds after application (tire was dry when I flatted it)


I just used a basic measuring tape ang eye balled from the top of the rim to the top of the tire. It was about 2 1/4. I really want to try these but it would sick to order it and have it not fit


----------



## tatankainlondon (Apr 4, 2004)

WOW - if these are 2.4s then officially they are massive !!!


----------



## doodooboi (Dec 29, 2006)

Hey Climbingbubba, just my un-worthy 2 cents here but, in that picture with the intense. the tire seems to fill the gap in that totem really well. The tire makes that fork look like a 36-38mm fork. So with that in mind I would think it would be pretty large and could definitly be a tight fit on the Jedi. 

With that said, if you still go for it let me know how that goes cause I would like to find a cheaper tire than the Maxxis. They have raised there price and that is even at the E.P level.


----------



## godfather (Jun 28, 2009)

If anyone spots a good price on the 2.4 UST RQ, or the 2.5 Der Kaiser, let us know. So far what I have seen is a cost higher than the Minions I'm trying to replace.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

The RQ costs a lot but it wears well... my non-ust 2.4s grip at least as well as maxxis st compound, but wear better than a 60a compound tire. They also wear a lot better than some Big Bettys I had. Chain reaction had them for $43 USD a while ago. I would actually buy them for $75 if I had no other choice.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

thanks guys, i really want to try them. maybe ill buy 2 and if it doesn't fit on the rear i can just have a spare for the front. then i could put a Schwalbe big betty or muddy marry on the rear.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

There is plenty of room with the totem.
Front angle of fork (better see the rubber queen fit)









FYI, wiggle has the best prices I have found right now.

As far as price, they cost more but I found they last longer (than Stick-e kenda and Super tacky maxxis).

Bubba hope it fits your frame, do you have the new jedi rear triangle or old one?


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

One_Speed said:


> There is plenty of room with the totem.
> Front angle of fork (better see the rubber queen fit)
> 
> 
> ...


i have the old one but it had been dremmeled out to fit larger tires. probably 4mm of extra clearance.

one speed - could you measure how tall they are for me? seems no one here will. just from the top of the rim to the top of the tire. just eye ball it and give a rough estimate.


----------



## Stalk (May 24, 2005)

I got about 2.4" height measured from the edge of the 823 rim. Again, not sure how precise it is and I see about the same height with 2.5 DHR I have on another wheel.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

Stalk said:


> I got about 2.4" height measured from the edge of the 823 rim. Again, not sure how precise it is and I see about the same height with 2.5 DHR I have on another wheel.


a minion DHR will fit in the rear of my bike with room to spare. i will have to take your word for it then. i think i might pull the trigger on them. im having a hard time finding something else to run tubeless right now.

also considering some muddy mary's.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

oh im also going to put an advantage on my bike and see if it fits in the rear. according to the website posted above with the heights the advantage and rubber queen are within 2mm of each other. so if an advantage fits than anything will fit. they are crazy tall.


----------



## godfather (Jun 28, 2009)

Let us know. I'm pretty close to ordering up a pair too.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

climbingbubba said:


> i have the old one but it had been dremmeled out to fit larger tires. probably 4mm of extra clearance.
> 
> one speed - could you measure how tall they are for me? seems no one here will. just from the top of the rim to the top of the tire. just eye ball it and give a rough estimate.


Dowh on the dremmel. 

Will take a measurement shortly.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

They are almost 2 1/4" in height. With mavic 819 rim.

MTB tires claims 2.27 inches in height.

Photo is of rear tire and the center knobs are worn. Even with new lugs it is slightly under 2 1/4" inches.

I placed the ruler next to the rim so were not getting down to 100th of a inch accuracy. I would think if you have 2 1/4" of clearance it should fit.









Hope that helps, Can measure the front is in newer condition if your worried about the fit.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

wow, for how tall they and big they look they really aren't that tall. thats the same height as the maxxis high roller 2.5's and the intense 909 2.5's. i had talked myself out of them but now with this info i may have to reconsider them dand it!!!!! ha ha

those are mavic 823's right?

i am also really considering some schwalbe 2.5 muddy mary's for the front and a 2.4 big betty in the rear. id get them both in the DH casing and run them tubeless. i would only gain about 150 grams front and rear.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

climbingbubba said:


> wow, for how tall they and big they look they really aren't that tall. thats the same height as the maxxis high roller 2.5's and the intense 909 2.5's. i had talked myself out of them but now with this info i may have to reconsider them dand it!!!!! ha ha
> 
> those are mavic 823's right?
> 
> i am also really considering some schwalbe 2.5 muddy mary's for the front and a 2.4 big betty in the rear. id get them both in the DH casing and run them tubeless. i would only gain about 150 grams front and rear.


There a little wider/higher volume than the 2.5 ust minion, but very close in size.

I lost about lb over the 2.5 UST maxxis minion/high roller.

No Unfortunately, a 819 rim.


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

thanks,

so would a 823 make them taller or shorter? it would almost seem like it would make it shorter since its a wider rim.

yeah im wondering if i really want to lose one LB of plowability. i already have an AM bike and these will be strictly shuttle/resort/race tires. It would probably work pretty well for the races around here though where sprinting can cut off alot of time.

i guess i could order them and if i don't like them or they don't fit i could probably sell them pretty easy.


----------



## njhcx4xlife (Jan 9, 2006)

climbingbubba said:


> thanks,
> 
> yeah im wondering if i really want to lose one LB of plowability. i already have an AM bike and these will be strictly shuttle/resort/race tires.


That is my concern with all of these lighter dh tires. On DHFs I barrel through rocks without much thought. May not be worth the weight savings to ride around all day with your cheeks quivering in fear of tearing a tire. If they are strong then they seem like a great tire.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

climbingbubba said:


> thanks,
> 
> so would a 823 make them taller or shorter? it would almost seem like it would make it shorter since its a wider rim.
> 
> ...


823 is wider and the tire should be shorter in height.

Just to be clear, I lost *almost* a lb due to dropping stans in the tires.

2.5 UST DHF 1270 grams
2.4 UST Rubber Queen 1150 grams

Stans 60 grams per wheel.

I do not feel like I am losing any plowability, like if I was run a 800 gram tire. That all depends on your weight and how you ride.

I do have to climb to the top of the hill to get my DH runs in, but not going to sacrifice weight by using a weak tire.

Good luck with whatever you decide. Please share what you decide and how they work out.


----------



## tatankainlondon (Apr 4, 2004)

*One_Speed*

Am I correct in thinking that you dropped almost 1lb in comparison to your previous setup by using UST Rubber Queens and not using stans? Or did I mix it up?


----------



## climbingbubba (Jan 10, 2007)

man i just need to buy them and see for my self i guess.

i didn't realize they were 1150 grams. they advertise them as being less. That sounds like the perfect weight. I would use some stans anyway. 

Im currently running 1000 gram tires with tubes and they only plow problems im having is worrying im going to pinch flat cause it happens so often with these 823's. thats why i want to go back to tubeless.


----------



## One_Speed (Aug 3, 2007)

tatankainlondon said:


> *One_Speed*
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that you dropped almost 1lb in comparison to your previous setup by using UST Rubber Queens and not using stans? Or did I mix it up?


That is correct. 
*41.5 lb bike*
UST 2.5 maxxis high roller Rear /minion DHF front
2 scoops stans in each tire

*40.5 lb bike*
UST 2.4 rubber queen front and rear
No stans

I found the stans gummed up between the bead and rim. Became a pain to clean off every time I needed to true the rim. FYI, These tires will not fit in a park truing stand so you have to remove the tire to true the wheel.

Before switching to these (and the maxxis 2.5 ust) I pinch flatted tubed tires every ride. :madman:

For comparison : Supposedly the Der Kaiser weights in at 1100 grams. (Listed as 1000 grams on conti website)

I like to lose weight but not at the expense of flatting or having mechanicals.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

if its weight reduction you are after then get some Onza Ibex 2.4 DH tyres. They weigh in at 1020g.

I have been running them tubeless all season on Crank Bros wheels - no sealant required - although I use a little to prevent small punctures.

Anyway great tyres and very light build!


----------



## giantsaam (Dec 10, 2006)

I just got a couple rides on the 2.4ust Rubber Queens mounted to 823s on my Canfield Lucky and here's what I have to think about them. First of all these things are huge for a 2.4 and the casing is very decent. I lost near 2 lbs putting these tires on so my bike felt instantly poppy. My first couple runs were very high speed and these tires ripped I could push them into berms and hit doubles like the hack that I am without fear of them burping or a hint of loss of traction. Then we decided to hit the steep damp dirt with plent of rock drops, this was the only place I wished this tire had taller knobs although it held its own on the trail. So over all this is the best tire I have ever run even with me being a 210lb hack on wheels these things handle so well I am buying them for all 3 of my trail bikes.


----------



## godfather (Jun 28, 2009)

giantsaam said:


> I just got a couple rides on the 2.4ust Rubber Queens mounted to 823s on my Canfield Lucky and here's what I have to think about them. First of all these things are huge for a 2.4 and the casing is very decent. I lost near 2 lbs putting these tires on so my bike felt instantly poppy. My first couple runs were very high speed and these tires ripped I could push them into berms and hit doubles like the hack that I am without fear of them burping or a hint of loss of traction. Then we decided to hit the steep damp dirt with plent of rock drops, this was the only place I wished this tire had taller knobs although it held its own on the trail. So over all this is the best tire I have ever run even with me being a 210lb hack on wheels these things handle so well I am buying them for all 3 of my trail bikes.


giantsaam,
A couple of quick questions. What were you running before the Rubber Queens? Have you run the Minion DHF Super Tacky, and if so, how does the RQ compare? Lastly, have you had a chance to run the new treads on any wet roots or rocks to see how they grip on slick surfaces? I have a set of Der Kaisers coming, but I'm also very interested in the RQ.

Thanks!


----------



## giantsaam (Dec 10, 2006)

godfather said:


> giantsaam,
> A couple of quick questions. What were you running before the Rubber Queens? Have you run the Minion DHF Super Tacky, and if so, how does the RQ compare? Lastly, have you had a chance to run the new treads on any wet roots or rocks to see how they grip on slick surfaces? I have a set of Der Kaisers coming, but I'm also very interested in the RQ.
> 
> Thanks!


I was running the 2.5 wtb dissent team dh version before these and they weighed in over 1400g each. I do have experience with the dhf and I think the dhf is a faster rolling tire but it feels more like you are floating and the transition to the side knobs are way to far apart. I have had a little experience on the wet roots and rocks and that is were the rubber queens are not the best that doesn't mean theey aren't good though. For rocks and wet roots I think something with a taller knob maybe the der kaisers would be better. I have gone through at least 20 different tires in 3 yrs and the 2.4 ust rubber queens are the best tire by far followed by the 2.4 ust big betty and the dhf ust is around 5th place in my books.


----------



## godfather (Jun 28, 2009)

Sounds good. Thanks for the info.


----------

