Now that the trails have firmed up in my locale, I have been able to get out on the Continental Race King 29″er tires. My set up for the first rides was tubed with FSA XC-290 wheels (Also on test). The conditions were loamy to hardpack, with a bit of sand and some mud thrown in to the mix. But first, here are some initial hard numbers on the Continental Race Kings.
Weight: 650 grams and 620 grams
Width: 51.3mm/2.02 inches
The weight was about what I expected holding them in the hand and for the claimed width. The initial width measurement is a bit underwhelming. (2.2 inches is 55.88mm for referance) My experience with the Mountain King tells me these will stretch more with time and especially if I go to a tubeless set up. That said, expecting these tires to stretch nearly 4mm would be asking a lot. The Race King may be a bit undersized for it’s stated width, but it is taller off the rim than anything else in it’s class that I have here, or have seen. The mounted profile of the tire on the FSA rims (24mm wide) is really rounded, almost peaked. I ran the tires at 35psi rear and 30 psi front on my first rides.
The width and profile of the tires made for a fast feeling tire. Going up a fire road climb was easier due to the lower rolling resistance. Once at the top of this climb the downhill comes with some tight turns and switchbacks that go into a long traverse across a ridge that is very off camber. In my mind I was thinking that these tires were not going to do well here. However; I was pleasantly surprised when the tires stuck to the trail. This section was freshly raked, loamy, and littered with roots. The Race Kings handled the roots well. The taller profile of the tires soaking up the bumps better than some tires I have tried.
Climbing was an eye opener. I mistakenly took a little used steep climb that featured “steps” of roots across my path about every three feet in a deeply rutted track. No way around it, I had to ride right up this “nature’s staircase”. The Race Kings absorbed the edges of the roots well making for slip free traction and a less bumpy ride up which allowed me to keep a more steady cadence. I’m impressed with the Race King as a climbing tire. The small, triangular shaped knobs seem to do more than they let on by their diminutive appearance.
The Race Kings as mounted on my Salsa El Mariachi.The cornering performance was good. I will have to explore this further on some faster trail, but the Continentals showed no signs of losing grip in these corners. The trail did have some muddy spots and the lack of any tall knobs made for little traction in the grease. I had to dismount a couple of times when I just couldn’t propel myself forward anymore. The narrow, highly crowned profile did dig in, so if there were any hard ground underneath, it may have grabbed ahold, but this was fairly bottomless mud. The cutting in was also eveident in sand as well. I think the race King will be a tougher tire to steer through the sand traps once they fully develope this summer.
I’ll be putting these tires through more trail testing with a switch to tubeless soon. Stay tuned!
The Big Wheeled Ballyhoo 
April 13, 2009 at 4:00 am |
Size is disappointing – I have a set of the undersized OEM tires (future monster cross project) that measure 46mm on Mavic A317 rims. If they’d come closer to the size of the Saguaro, I think that’d be ideal.
April 13, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
…and then your crank fell off! 😉
April 14, 2009 at 1:56 am |
About the sand traps:
The poor performance in mud does not say much about its capability to float over soft, deep sand. The 26″ version does not like mud either, but it shines on sand. I expect this one to do the same.
April 16, 2009 at 6:24 am |
GT your words are too kind. “initial width measurement is a bit underwhelming”?
I would consider Continental’s measure a joke.
And the tyres volume? Again – tiny.
The benchmark Ralph 2.25 is all of 56mm wide as is the XDX with bags twice as tall (well almost,,,)
Continental have for too long undersized their tyres to stated and need to be flogged for it.
April 16, 2009 at 6:39 am |
I would say some people have been whining about stated vs. actual tire widths for too long.
There are very little companies that provide exact measurements. Schwalbe does not exactly do a good job on its ‘2.0″‘ Furious Fred either, to name one. Part of the reason for this, is that it is very hard to estimate width from a mould. There are manufacturing tolerances and most tires grow a bit.
Just judge a tire on its performance. Its performance is influenced a bit by real width (and pressure, and rim bed width), but speaks for itself.
Conti’s first badge of Cannondale OEM Race Kings were a joke, and they responded by altering the mould. Do they need to be flogged? Here you have a company that evaluates and reacts very quickly. That’s rare!
No matter what the advertised width is, these tires look quite big to me. Keep in mind there are hardly any knobs sticking out. The casing has quite a lot of volume.
April 16, 2009 at 9:12 am |
I would agree with JeroenK here. Conti did do the right thing and tried to rectify the first attempt. Kudos to them for that.
Also, the height of the Race King is impressive. I do think, (know would be a better term) that these tires will grow a bit more set up tubeless. Will they get to 2.2 inches? Doubtful, but they will be close. We will see.
April 17, 2009 at 10:20 am |
If it is hard to estimate actual tire width from a mould, then why do tires err on the narrower side rather than the wider side so consistently from he same manufacturers………….?
hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm