[Flboy]

Does any one have actual measurments of these new conti tires. Cornering performance of the x-kings, rolling resistance of the MKII's? I am considering getting a MK race sport 2.2 for the front and a x-king race sport 2.2 for the rear. I would like to hear any of your experiences with these tires.

Thanks

 

[Steve_James]

I have been racing XC on the 2.2XK RS front and rear for the past 3 Months. They are the most awesome tyre to grace my bike for a long long time (except 2.2RK in the dry!!)

They have superb and very predictable edge tread and also they roll very well indeed - in fact hardly any noticable difference in rolling between the XK and the RK. Also the new RS option mounts up tubeless really well.

For me I think the XK has plenty of bite for the front in any condition but I am a light and pretty experienced XC racer. For rougher XC or AM I would maybe go with the 2.4XK or a MK up front but for XC, the 2.2XK front and rear rocks.

 

[Turveyd]

As I've only had RK2.2 none BC the XK2.4 Protection BC seems to role faster to me at a lower pressure aswell for more comfort.

Not tried it on the front yet, but looks like it would make a good fast front tire, but I love my RQ2.4 fantastic tyre, the old MK was so useless I'd put a RQ( TK ) 2.2 on the front in your shoes and a XK2.2 on the rear.

Size wise the XK 2.4 Pro is slightly higher volume than the RK, but rounder casing so wider and taller, the 2.2 is supposed to be smaller than a RK2.2, think RK2.1 if it existed.

 

[Flboy]

Currently I am running the original MK protection in 2.4. I have been pretty happy with the tire, it has been washing out for me in the front latley. Not sure if it my fault or the tires. So I am lookin got get something lighter and that would roll faster. I weighed my MK's before I mounted them and they both came in at 1lb 12 oz. (795 g).

Thanks for the replies, suggest running a 2.4 XK or MK II in the front or stick a 2.2 MK II in the front? The main reason I ran 2.4 in the first place was to help float over teh sugar sand we get on the trails down here.

 

[Steve_James]

for the kind of stuff you say you are riding, I'd be tempted to go with 2.4XK front and rear in RS version which gives you the BC compund. They are around the 600g mark or a touch under I think. These will roll faster and they are very predicatble when on the edge so you get great warning before they let go!

 

[Flboy]

for the kind of stuff you say you are riding, I'd be tempted to go with 2.4XK front and rear in RS version which gives you the BC compund. They are around the 600g mark or a touch under I think. These will roll faster and they are very predicatble when on the edge so you get great warning before they let go!

How is the cornering performance of the XK's? And you would suggest going 2.4 front and rear. I have been planning to get a narrower rear tire to save some weight. Not a weight weenie, I just think it would make my bike a bit more snappy.

I am still a little conflicted ( F / R ) . 2.4 / 2.4 XK, or 2.4 / 2.2 XK, or 2.2 MKII / 2.2 XK, or 2.4 MKII / 2.4 XK, or 2.4 MKII / 2.2 XK

All would be race sport. Thinking about this gives me headache. :madman:

 

[Turveyd]

2.4 Protection ran soft ish doesn't drag at all in the rear I've found, faster than the standard cheap compound RK2.2 and better grip and more predictable, my fav rear tyre, not tried on the front yet though.

Volume is reasonible, more than the RK2.2's taller and rounder to so might not fit in your frame.