[Chteneyck]

I ran the MK II as a rear tire for a whopping 4 rides before the sidewall gashed on a less than impressive rock. Plus I lost 4 knobs during that same time. Not impressed.

 

[Blackthorne]

To add on the characteristics of the X-King, I can safely say this: they are dangerous in the wet, esp. on packed mud. Uncontrollable loss of grip especially when braking. Durability is also very poor, as corroborated by others, with knobs shearing off on rocky terrain. On the plus side, I've never experienced a pinch flat with the Protection series.

 

[thumper07]

Just a note: I've never ridden a tire that didn't handle well. Proper knowledge of weight distribution goes a long way. 9 times out of 10, the person who complains that a particular tire doesn't handle well is because they do not know how to ride. If you read a review that says the tire doesn't handle well, you'd be well to skip it and go to the next review. Because, chances are the rider doesn't know how to handle the bike and there's nothing wrong with the tire.

 

[Tony3]

I just purchased a pair of mountain kings 26. They initially are working great. Tom, I am glad someone feels the way I do about bike handling.

 

[leel1]

Tom,

Where are you going with such a provocative subjective and completely unsubstantiated comment? You've gone almost all the way. Why don't you outright say it and state that everyone who dislikes either of these Conti tires is a lousy rider.

Let's extend your ludicrous line of reasoning further along the axiom of a bad carpenter blames her tools and say that there are no bad bike products, just bad riders. I'd like to see expansion on that.

Note that I actually like the MK but am indifferent to the X-Kings so don't even feel offended or challenged but would be interested in your substantiation of your logic bomb

 

[pastajet]

Tom,

Sorry, but I disagree. I have ridden plenty of tires (as a user, reviewer and beta tester), and have found many that don't handle well, and I have the magic touch for weight distribution. Tires are greatly influenced by the terrain and conditions that the tire is asked to perform in.In the Colorado Springs area where I ride, we have Pikes Peak gravel (pea gravel) on most of our trails, and it's one of the most nightmarish traction eaters that I have ever dealt with. Cornering, braking and climbing can be a lesson in humility.

As a side note, Lee is an exceptional rider, and I highly value his viewpoint. I have tested these new MK II, and much prefer their predecessor in the 2.4 size, as they worked much better in rocky and loose terrain, though the new one rolls and accelerates better.

 

[trifasciata1]

LeeL,
How would you rate the MK2, X-King, Beaver, and Ikon as a front tire (best to worst) for wet roots and rocks; and damp loose over hardpack? Thanks in advance

 

[leel1]

Best to worst

- MK2
- Beaver
- Ikon
- XKing

YMMV of course

 

[dan9]

I agree with most of the posts above. Three of my Conti tires have split w/out any hint of trauma whatsoever. Must be their new formula, it's not forgiving at all. I'm switching to another brand.

 

[Eduardo Lopes]

I has using race and x king on my Tallboy.
Since first moment seal the tyre in tubless on crest rings was very dificult - I just had sucess with several cups of Continental sealler.
Sinde even with "protection" is very poor
I don't advise then

 

[steve_bell]

just bought x king racesport 2.2 but there are so many pics of these which one is the real deal?? show more pics of both sides of tire full please i have been searching google and they only show the name!! performance reveiw nice but there is the full look of a tire that appeals to many!!!! thanks steve bell

 

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I am looking at going with Mk IIs (w/protection, Black chili) tubeless for my 2012 Rocky 950. This review helps in crossing the X-Kings off the list.

LeeL, Any thoughts on how the MK IIs stack up against Nobby Nics (w/ SnakeSkin, pacestar), or perhaps the MK on one tire and the NN on the other?

 

[leel1]

nlm

I've ridden the NN with Pacestar and Trailstar. They're pretty prone to flat and have pretty thin sidewalls so you're wise to get the extra sidewall protection. They're an OK tire. Above average at best. While I still consider the MKIIs to be really good. But then I'm partial to tires with tread patterns that aren't busy with intermediate knobs barfed all over the place and with clear tread channels and prominent stiff cornering knobs (ie DHF, HR2, MKII)

As a side note I had the misfortune of having a 2.4 X-King front and rear on a bike in the 650 configuration and was even less impressed. In the wider version one would expect a tire to have a bit better grip but the X-King is just as bad in the wet as I remember.

 

[Mark2]

I have really enjoyed the Trail King/Rubber Queen's in UST 2.4 for Colorado front range riding. I too prefer Lee's choice of tires with less intermediate knobs. I tired the Hans Dampf after my TK's and much prefer the Black Chili compound for better center traction and wear. I am interested in how you think the Mountain Kings in Protection would hold up to much if the front range technical riding like Dakota ridge, Palmer Park, or Apex/enchanted forest? Thanks Mark

 

[Mrshorty]

I see from many of the comments that the X-Kings are not ideal in wet conditions, but the work very very well in the dry, rocky desert southwest!

 

[puga]

Sorry Tom, I seriously disagree! I've been cycling since I was a young child and am now 45 with several years of competitive cycling under my belt. You are wrong! Certain tires are not well engineered and that is a fact! They may do well under certain conditions but not all, were as other tires do much better in various conditions. Rider experience and skill play a very big part but equipment design also plays a huge role in whether one has an enjoyable and safe ride. So using your "knowledge/wisdom" a $100 Huffy should handle as well as my ride because it all boils down to whether I can ride....? Seriously?

 

[puga]

After several ride on my 29 Hardtail with Rockshoks up front I can honestly write that the Continental Mountain King IIs are terrible on wet roots! I ride in German forests where wet mud and roots are everywhere. These tires roll well and dig into mud well and for other conditions they might do well but if you ride wet forests with sharp turns and roots you better wear protective equipment. They are dangerous!

 

[thebe]

puga, do you have a perspective on the Hans Dampf pacestar 29X2.35 for wet rooty conditions vs. the MK II?

 

[thebe]

Lee, have you tried the Hans Dampf 2.35? Either the pacestar or trailstar? How do they fare in your area? I am riding in the BC race next week and trying to decide between HD and Continental MK II 2.4. - I currently ride HD pacestar but have a Conti MKII sitting around.