[kapusta]

I am considering the MK 2.2 for a rear tire. I have a 26" MK 2.4 protection on the rear of my 26er, and really love it, and I believe it has a lot to do with the Black Chili compound. Are the 29er versions available with the Black Chili Compound? They are not labeled as Supersonic or Protection, so I am guessing not, but does anyone know for sure?

 

[Ryan G.]

Nope.

http://www.conti-online.com/generat...es/mtb/cross_country/MountainKing_new_en.html

 

[TrekFurthur]

Black chili, or not black chili

I've ridden both and don't really notice that much difference on the trail; on the road to the trail, however, the 29er doesn't wear down as fast.

 

[hellocook]

don't worry too much. i am sure that most of the black chili story is marketing ...

 

[kapusta]

don't worry too much. i am sure that most of the black chili story is marketing ...

I don't know.... the traction of the one I have on wet rocks and roots is pretty impressive, and I have a hard time believing it is just the tread pattern. It usually has a lot to do with rubber compound. I definitely noticed the difference between Stick-E and non Stick-E Kenda tires.

Not saying this is a dealbreaker for the 29" MK's, as they still seem to get rave reviews for what I am looking for: a rear tire for east coast winter conditions.

 

[hellocook]

there is no doubt that conti has greatly improved their compounds.

i am using the 29er MKs (tubeless stan's) as well as 26" MK on 1 bike as protection 2.4 and on another as supersonic 2.2, both with tubes. Before i used up a set of UST MK 2.2. All these tires are great and i have had a lot of luck with them.

performance is comparable, i would consider wet traction on roots slighlty better with the UST and the 29er. I assume due to the tubeless set up and the bigger 29er foot print. So I guess tubeless and running lower pressures will help more than "black chili". also, the non-black-chilis are definetily on par or very close in performance to the black chili mountain kings.