I’m sitting down this morning to start my review of the Continental Dubnital Rapids (2.4), which I’ve been on for about 8 weeks now. I’m slowly working my way through the tires deemed fast by John over at Flexfit (thanks John!) with a focus on real-world MTB performance than anything. Not that interested in their use on gravel tbh because the demands there are nowhere near as severe.
As with my review of the Vittoria Peyote vs Maxxis Aspen (TLDR: Peyotes are surprisingly grippy) I’m more interested in do they turn/do they stop/do they flat/etc. The assumption is that John’s testing is at least a good baseline indicator of speed, even if no test can be perfect, so the other stuff is where the questions lie.
I have tons of thoughts on the Dubnitals. But I want yours. More riders are better than one! Anybody out there ridden them? Specifically the Rapid version? Did you like them? Any issues?
IF you haven’t ridden them, what questions do you want answered?
My question - how does the size compare to the Race King 2.2? I have heard they are basically the same size. My question would be around gravel - maybe that’s outside your scope though? In particular I wonder in the Dubnital 2.2 or 2.4 would be the replacement for Race Kings on chunky gravel.
I don’t have any Dubnital 2.2s here but will see if I can dig some up.
I do have some Race King 2.2s, will mount them up to the same rims and measure. That’s a great question. The scope of this review is more MTB focused but there’s lots to be taken on the gravel side too.
I don’t have them but as somebody who rides very not like Durango terrain (Midwest dirt, flat rooty twisty but not big rocks etc) , the more variation in trail surface you can get in your reviews to match the broad spectrum of surface types readers might ride the better.
I’m looking at these in the 2.4’s to replace a racing ray/ralph 2.25 combo on my xc marathon bike. Would be interested to know how they feel front and rear. Hopefully fitting them to some Hunt Proven 30mm int wheels. How do they measure up? Racing Ray is a great front tyre for northern UK conditions - dry/mud/gravely all in one ride so it would need to be half decent in all of these conditions. Which ones are you testing Trail or Race , Grip or Rapid.
I have them and mine measure 54mm wide on 23mm internal rims. I never tried the Race Kings but the Dubs were excellent on the very chunky “gravel” of this year’s Lost & Found long course and they perform really well on the chunk in Marin County CA.
The closest I can get to that here is some high country riding, which I made sure to take these to. They’re impressively grippy on wet stuff. Rubber compound is pretty soft I think - wear faster than a Rekon Race for sure.
Do you think they are more feasible as a front tyre than the Peyote? I currently run Vittoria Barzos, I am very interested in the Dubnitals as a faster option, but tossing up whether it would be worth getting a Trinotal for the front
Totally not expecting you guys to come out to my neck of the woods just to test tires, but in general a good test should acknowledge that readers ride a wide range of conditions, and certain influential testing outlets being based in certain very specific parts of the world coughpinkbikecough can result in some less than universally helpful testing.
@caley_fretz subjectively I liked the Dub 2.4s pretty well. Rode gravel for testing and some trail also just for fun. I also have ridden race king 2.2s and Dub RR 2.2s a good bit and the Dub RR 2.4 is miles past those for true MTB use.
I’ve mostly been on Rick 2.4s lately but like the peyote 2.4s better. Prob doing Barzo/Mezcal soon with wet leaves and rocks here.
I thought the Dub 2.4s and also Air Trak 2.35s were almost suspiciously light for the size but had no issues on either.
They are crazy light. I definitely had issues with squirm. The optimal pressure window is incredibly narrow if you’re riding them hard - I think that’s the defining feature of the tire, actually.
@Christiaan_Swanepoel They have more straight-line (so braking mostly, or light cornering) grip than the Peyote. Hard cornering is pretty similar and I certainly can’t feel any difference in rolling speed when on trail. Peyote feels a bit faster on pavement (likely just due to the super low knobs).
I’ve ridden the Peyote for over a year, and I tried the Dubnital earlier when they came out. Both 2.4, the Rapid Race etc etc. I found the Peyote to have the edge in overall grip most of the time, especially when it was a bit damp out (like morning dew conditions). The Dubs measure about 3mm narrower than the Peyote when both mounted on 30mm internal rims.
The biggest issue I had was that the Dubs had to be leaned over quite a bit farther to really corner. The tread profile is peaky in the middle. The Peyote, with its very shallow center tread and gradually taller side knobs, has a larger profile radius, making the digging side knobs engage earlier and harder. The Dubnital by contrast are quite vague until you really lean the bike over. It’s possible that if I was transitioning from a tire that was not so drastically different in profile, I would get along better. As it is, I’m mounting them up again to give them another shot, and I’ll be deliberately focusing on leaning the bike harder.
Prior to these, my favorite tire was the Rekon Race, feeling that they were much more predictable and versatile than other XC tires. Notably, their tread profile was broad like the Peyote. I had also given the Pirelli XC RC a go and they were fine.
I tried the Mezcal as well. I’m not sure when I would choose to use them, almost always I’d simply go with the Peyote instead.
Have been using Dubnital 2.4 grip/race F (1.1 bar) and 2.4 rapid/race R (1.25 bar) for some months now on 30.5mm inner width rims on an Epic 8. After some use they measure 60 to 61 mm wide. As compared to some Aspen / Aspen ST 170 2.4 I find that they are a bit less comfortable/fluffy feeling. On my local trails (sandy/rooty with lots of corners and short up’s and downs) they are just as good or perhaps even slightly better than the Aspens (non ST) gripwise (corners and straight line). In use they are a bit akin to Kenda Boosters, but slightly wider. Also used them in the Alps and at Lake Garda. There I prefer the Aspen up front (If choosing between those 2). Have not had any flats, they inflate well and are airtight with regular Stans. They do feel slightly faster on asphalt than an Aspen/Aspen ST 170 2.4 combo but on the trail I do not notice much difference.
Also used Mezcal, Barzo, Rush, Booster, Karna 2, Trinotal, RaceKing, CrossKing etc. For now and for local use, the Dubs stay on. Since we do not have much mud around here, I will probably run them during winter too.
For trips to the south or abroad, I may change the front for a(n old) CrossKing 2,3 or Aspen 2.4.
Interesting thoughts on the shape. I talked about that quite a bit in the Peyote/Aspen review. People seem to like either that rounder Peyote shape or the peakier Mezcal type shape. I find the Dubs to sit about halfway in between, but I’m normally into wide radius - Peyote and Rekon Race are two favorites.
Has anybody had issues with squirm at low pressures? Our trails are rough and loose, so low pressure is good, but I’ve run into a lot of hard corner squirm once I get the Dubnitals down to a pressure I like elsewhere.
Some background: I’ve raced Leadville six times on Race Kings (since ‘14), and am a big fan of that tire for more “gravel” style riding/racing as it has an impressive combination of speed/protection/grip. But it was severely lacking in volume, and I never enjoyed proper trail riding on it. For nearly all other riding/racing, I stuck with 2.4 Aspens or Rekon Races for many years.
Dub 2.4s have really changed the game for me, offering Aspen ST/Peyote/Air Trak (all of which I tested and enjoyed in many ways) levels of speed, but with significantly better braking and puncture protection, all at significantly reduced weight. They’re not a magic bullet, but the increased width and slightly tweaked tread pattern give the tire much, much more versatility than the original RK. It’s fun to ride and doesn’t feel like you’re on a razor’s edge in technical terrain.
All that said, the Aspen 2.4 is still worth the weight penalty and increase in rolling resistance for trail-focused racing/training. And I swapped back to the 2.2 version for Leadville this year since I was running an FS, and that changes some of the hysteresis math for race day optimization. I think the 2.4 would have been fine though, and certainly a little safer.
Running Race/Grip as a rear (20PSI/84kg me 97kg system weight).
UK conditions, quite variable but getting muddier at this time of year. Nothing too sharp - trashing casings not usually an issue. Like the poster above run Racing Ray fronts which are superb for my riding.
Feels fast and confidence inspiring, not particularly squirmy although I don’t push super hard. Good grip on roots. Sharp edges have dulled already suggesting to me compound not as durable as Schwalbe Addix Speedgrip. I’m ok with that as a performance tradeoff although short-lived tyres are probably a sustainability disaster.
Not as airtight as some but that may be my setup. I wondered whether it is a function of a very light casing.
It seems like they are >200g/pair lighter than Rick XC at the same size, which, all other things being equal is a significant benefit.
Questions still to be answered:
Rapid vs Grip compound (latter is a bit cheaper - is it inferior or just a different balance of characteristics?)
Any good up front?
If the answer to 2 is no is Trinotal any better? (Guy Kesteven wasn’t impressed)
Seems the Tufo XC11-14 range are similar in terms of width & weight - are you able to get those in to compare?
I’m running the XC12 front & rear currently and really like them. A visual comparison tells me the Tufos have a slightly deeper tread depth despite the weight similarity.
A number of people on the Internet (mtbr and discord) have been unexpectedly rim striking with them. Any comments on that, or pressure differences might be appreciated.
Also, if you have a benchmark “down country” or fast trail tire, that would be an interesting comparison as well.