Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Continental GP5000 test results
Quote | Reply
It was already going to be a popular tire, but it looks like it might get even more popular after these results:

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/gp-5000-data

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Last edited by: refthimos: Dec 4, 18 9:49
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Excellent test, thank you for providing the link and many thanks to Aerocoach for testing !

An addition to this test, you can also look at my friend’s Alban rolling resistance results : http://www.cyclesetforme.fr/...-gp-5000-et-5000-tl/

It’s great that Continental managed to improve on an already excellent every day tire that’s also great for racing when we want to play it a bit safe in term of puncture protection ! Good job Conti ;-)
Last edited by: pyf: Nov 20, 18 18:54
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, and bike closet has them for 54.99 right now. Might have to splurge on a couple. Good to see some actual data.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice test and thanks for the link. Looks like the 5000s are a nice upgrade from the 4000s. I have used the 4000s as my everyday tire for years, so it is nice to have a simple upgrade.

It looks like the ultimate TT tire is still going to be application dependent because the aero advantage is too small at low yaw and Crr isn't good enough to match the more fragile SS and Corsa Speeds.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for sharing. Based on those results, the GP 5000 will likely become my new "go-to" tire. IMO, the very minor total wattage penalty it sees to the GP TT is offset by its markedly increased puncture protection.

Edit: interesting, the French site has the tubeless GP 5000 tire outperforming the clincher GP 5000 with a latex tube. Not by much but I still find that interesting.
Last edited by: GreenPlease: Nov 20, 18 21:05
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for sharing. While I am all for data I would have preferred to see this test done with:

1) a deep front wheel of some sort, preferably a wider one
2) as a wheel only test

Interesting that the GP5000 was also narrower but tested worse at low yaw than the wider GP4000.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's very disappointing.

In 6-12 months, basically the whole world is going to be rolling around on tyres that are significantly faster than the (currently near-ubiquitous) 4000 SIIs and those of us that actually pay attention to these things and are already running quicker tyres will have lost a little bit of our advantage :(
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Interesting, thanks for the link

Seems to be in line with initial claim (12 % better RR than GP4000s2), as they are measured here exactly at 12% gain in RR vs GP4000s2 ...
bringing it around same results as GP Attack/Force and Michelin Power Comp for rolling resistance. But less fragile ?

Waiting for BRR test to confirm RR (not a lot of suspense...), and their puncture test :-) as I do not try to picture my own tires voluntarily...
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [awenborn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
awenborn wrote:
That's very disappointing.

In 6-12 months, basically the whole world is going to be rolling around on tyres that are significantly faster than the (currently near-ubiquitous) 4000 SIIs and those of us that actually pay attention to these things and are already running quicker tyres will have lost a little bit of our advantage :(

Don't worry, I'm sure Conti and others will issue more efficient and fragile tires, you will be able to continue to take puncture risk for a few watts ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very nice data, this is gonna be a cash cow for 10+years for continental no doubt.
Any data on the puncture resistance yet?
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
yes, the GP TT is a popular tire.

refthimos wrote:
It was already going to be a popular tire, but it looks like it might get even more popular after these results:

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/gp-5000-data

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
Thanks for sharing. While I am all for data I would have preferred to see this test done with:

1) a deep front wheel of some sort, preferably a wider one
2) as a wheel only test

Interesting that the GP5000 was also narrower but tested worse at low yaw than the wider GP4000.
Agreed

I don't see any good reason why you would choose to put a rider on the bike when testing the front wheel aerodynamics.
All it does is add massive potential for error.
I'd also like to see a deep section wheel as you say. The aerodynamic data is going to be relatively unimportant to anyone using a shallow box section rim. It would be more useful to test with a more representative deep rim, ideally with a 19mm+internal width as that will still provide the RR data for all, but also more useful aero data for those interested.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They did test with a wide rim - 19.6 internal ID. I suspect it's the same box-section rim that forms their Aeox deep wheels, since it also has the same outer ID.

However, since wheels like FLO were designed specifically to match the GP4000s, and the Aeox to match the Corsa Speed, I guess that's a pretty decent rationale for choosing a "neutral" rim. If compared to a deep rim, they should've gone for some no-name Chinese rim that sure as hell wasn't "optimised" for anything.

ZONE3 - We Last Longer
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [tessar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tessar wrote:
They did test with a wide rim - 19.6 internal ID. I suspect it's the same box-section rim that forms their Aeox deep wheels, since it also has the same outer ID.

However, since wheels like FLO were designed specifically to match the GP4000s, and the Aeox to match the Corsa Speed, I guess that's a pretty decent rationale for choosing a "neutral" rim. If compared to a deep rim, they should've gone for some no-name Chinese rim that sure as hell wasn't "optimised" for anything.
I know they used a wide rim. I was saying they could still have achieved this with a deeper rim and lost nothing on the rolling resistance testing. Aerodynamics cannot be dismantled piecemeal. You can't neutrally test a tyre. I think I know what you and they mean about avoiding unfair advantages due to optimised pairings but it's not really a sensible argument for choosing a box section rim IMO. That too will favour one over another, though unintentionally. Any deep section wheel whether optimised or not is more representative than this. A tyre cannot exist on a bike in isolation. There is always a rim. The aerodynamics cannot be simplified to just the tyre. Best option is to test the tyre with a few different appropriate rims. If testing aerodynamic efficiency, then more aerodynamically efficient rims are appropriate. If you can only test one, pick a popular one and if there's any specific optimisation claimed, state it. Simple as that.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What does 12% improvement in rolling resistance mean in real world for your average MOP rider?

Edit - I do see the chart they posted, claiming 4 watts @ 45km/hr. So maybe more like 2 watts at 35km/hr....

I'm thinking good opportunity to stock up on sale GP4000IIS's..... :)
Last edited by: SBRcanuck: Nov 21, 18 3:59
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
agreed....all im reading is while its an improvement on the 4000s in both RR and aero, it still falls short overall to the less aero gp TT, purely on RR alone.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
What does 12% improvement in rolling resistance mean in real world for your average MOP rider?

Edit - I do see the chart they posted, claiming 4 watts @ 45km/hr. So maybe more like 2 watts at 35km/hr....

I'm thinking good opportunity to stock up on sale GP4000IIS's..... :)

On real roads, a bit more watts, corresponding approximately 90 to 120 seconds on a IM70.3 90km bike course.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
SBRcanuck wrote:
What does 12% improvement in rolling resistance mean in real world for your average MOP rider?

Edit - I do see the chart they posted, claiming 4 watts @ 45km/hr. So maybe more like 2 watts at 35km/hr....

I'm thinking good opportunity to stock up on sale GP4000IIS's..... :)

On real roads, a bit more watts, corresponding approximately 90 to 120 seconds on a IM70.3 90km bike course.

Really?!! I save 2 min in a HIM over the 4ks2? That’s a lot!
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [KingMidas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And one more minute if you go GP TT.
At around 33/35 km/h average.
Using same inner tube, of course.

At higher speed, gain is a bit smaller, but when you are a pro, it can be worthy.

Why do you think pro take the risk to get a flat running fragile tires and fragile inner tube ?
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GreenPlease wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Based on those results, the GP 5000 will likely become my new "go-to" tire. IMO, the very minor total wattage penalty it sees to the GP TT is offset by its markedly increased puncture protection.

Edit: interesting, the French site has the tubeless GP 5000 tire outperforming the clincher GP 5000 with a latex tube. Not by much but I still find that interesting.

They are different tires though. I think a better test would be the 5000 TL setup tubeless vs the 5000 TL w/ latex tube.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
GreenPlease wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Based on those results, the GP 5000 will likely become my new "go-to" tire. IMO, the very minor total wattage penalty it sees to the GP TT is offset by its markedly increased puncture protection.

Edit: interesting, the French site has the tubeless GP 5000 tire outperforming the clincher GP 5000 with a latex tube. Not by much but I still find that interesting.


They are different tires though. I think a better test would be the 5000 TL setup tubeless vs the 5000 TL w/ latex tube.
Why?
Obviously the same tyre with a tube will be higher RR than without!
There's no need for the test you suggest.

GreenPlease's comparison is between the sensible tubeless and tubed options as they are intended.
If you intended to use a tube there's no reason to get the tubeless version which will presumably have more, or different material, and/or a different bead to ensure air retention.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
stevej wrote:
GreenPlease wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Based on those results, the GP 5000 will likely become my new "go-to" tire. IMO, the very minor total wattage penalty it sees to the GP TT is offset by its markedly increased puncture protection.

Edit: interesting, the French site has the tubeless GP 5000 tire outperforming the clincher GP 5000 with a latex tube. Not by much but I still find that interesting.


They are different tires though. I think a better test would be the 5000 TL setup tubeless vs the 5000 TL w/ latex tube.
Why?
Obviously the same tyre with a tube will be higher RR than without!
There's no need for the test you suggest.

GreenPlease's comparison is between the sensible tubeless and tubed options as they are intended.
If you intended to use a tube there's no reason to get the tubeless version which will presumably have more, or different material, and/or a different bead to ensure air retention.

Look at TomA's testing. A corsa speed setup tubeless tested no faster than with a latex tube. They were exactly the same.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So based on their testing, is the 23mm version the best size for modern wide rims like HED and Flo?

And their testing, it was with the -tubed- version, right??

Cheers
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hadn't seen that. Presumably this is due to the sealant? Did Tom ever suggest an explanation?
Were the difference solely tube or no tube I would have a very hard time believing such a result was not down to experimental error.
Quote Reply
Re: GP5000 test results [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
I hadn't seen that. Presumably this is due to the sealant? Did Tom ever suggest an explanation?
Were the difference solely tube or no tube I would have a very hard time believing such a result was not down to experimental error.

I'd speculate that it's just that the losses from a latex tube are so small they can't be measured with the precision of the tools used.
Quote Reply

Prev Next