The 4000 is slow, lots of faster options TT, turbo cotton, SS, Force etc.

As for latex do you run stans rim tape?

---

---

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

An update: The new wheels arrived and tires have been selected and installed. I decided to follow HED's recommendation--Attack in front, GP4000SII in back.

The Attack's listed width is 22mm. Installed it is 25.25mm wide at 95 PSI.

The GP4000SII's listed width is 23mm. Installed it is 26.53mm wide at 95 PSI.

Other installation details: Stan's rim tape, Vittoria latex tubes and sealant.

Old thread but checking in to see how much, if any, changes in opinion. The Attack still the best front option? Do we consider the newer GP5000 as an option for the front or the rear? Thanks.

I’m running GP5000 23mm front/rear on the Jet Plus and they fit perfectly - no bulging, seamless transition to the rim. I’ve heard of some people running 25mm in the rear but with latex tubes it’s riding plenty smooth and comfy for me.

The 4000 is not slow. It was actually one of the best tires available before the 5000 came out. Great mix of low rolling resistance, aerodynamics and puncture protection.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...d-prix-4000s-ii-2014

I think HED's recommendation now is the 23mm GP5K in front and 25mm GP5K in back. I am switching to that combination for 2020.

I rode 20c Conti SS front and 23c SS rear. The 20 on the front measures 24.15 at 85psi which is ideal for these rims. The 23 measures 25.4.

---

What's your CdA?

I’m running 23/25 GP5000s with latex tubes. Pretty happy thus far granted with limited mileage. No wind tunnel data but experience tells me the 23 up front (which measures ~24mm, much narrower than the “23mm” GP4k) with a very similar tread to the GP4k should be pretty aero. The rear doesn’t matter as much and the 25mm was surprisingly easy to mount on my Jet Blacks.

what i find notable, in the resuscitated era of this thread, is that we've had 6 posts on tire options and we're zero-for-6 on tubeless, even tho these are tubeless compatible rims.

it's notable to me because it's pretty clear that, at least for long distance racing, the professionals have moved on - they're about 3/4 tubeless now. this thread is (so far) evidence of the disconnect i wrote about last week. 2-in-10 of you will ride tubeless this year (generously 3-in-10), while the pros are 7 out of 10 and probably by next year 8-in-10, or higher, unless some new product comes out. unless there's some reason for you all to believe that this particular rim is not in fact compatible with tubeless tires you'd want to ride (i don't have any evidence of that).

it's pretty clear that on things like tires pros are going to ride what they think is fastest. 12 out of the 15 male pros ran in a carbon plated shoe, mostly nike next%. they're going to ride the tire they think is fastest. fascinating to me that in this particular case pros have clearly demonstrated what they think the fastest tires are, and AGers are just making the wager that the pros are wrong.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I think the most relevant data point is what percentage of pros were running butyl tubes in the past; do you know that number off-hand?

It would tie well into answering two points: (1) TL is clearly faster than butyl, but the evidence is mixed/extremely marginal compared to latex; (2) is what the pros use a good proxy for what's fastest? (disclaimer: I think the answer is no.)

there's a couple of pros running butyl still. light butyl. conti race. the others are all using latex, those who're still running clinchers w/tubes.

it doesn't seem to me logical that a pro would refuse to run latex if that's the fastest. the argument would have to be, "i trust clincher with butyl, i trust tubeless, but i don't trust clincher with latex." that doesn't seem to me a likely argument. i think there are 4 options, the pros will run any of those 4, whichever is fastest + least likely to require a stop mid-race.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

When brands are actively recommending against (e.g., ENVE) putting latex on non-disc, carbon clincher wheels (leaving aside that most courses have limited descending) and people are routinely posting on ST about how latex is prone to blowout flats (which is nearly always due to installation error), I think the "trust" issue is a factor. I've had many bike shops tell me that latex tubes were dangerous when I asked if they stocked them (I suppose it's actually a pretty good litmus test if I want to use that shop).

For me, tubeless creates more of a set-up risk, more flat risk, and more day-to-day irritation (the only thing I don't like about latex tubes is the air loss) for de minimis change in performance.

Have we had a survey or thread about why people are not running tubeless? I am very curious.

I have my personal account, but I am interested in why others are avoiding.

When I raced bikes in the late 80s and early 90s, I raced on tubulars. That was the pro standard then. They were a massive PITA to setup, and a flat on a ride compromised the rest of the ride. Flash to today, and my perception of tubeless is a messy PITA that would be a hassle in the case of a flat. And, my perception is that tubeless is faster than latex, but it is a relatively small incremental gain, that to me, is not worth the installation hassle and flat risk.

Edit: I think there are two key dimensions to capture on the tubeless decision. One is the belief of speed advantage, from no difference to tubeless much faster. The second is tubeless ownership hassle, from neutral to major PITA.

I have been running tubeless in races since what 2016, 2017? Been a while. I think at the time only Luke Mckenzie was the only other pro riding on them. For me, it was just as much about versatility. The idea that you could puncture with a slow leak and limp into T2 is incredible important to me or pinch flat. For many years of my career I had great luck riding Conti Supersonics with just a few flats but I knew I was rolling the dice a lot. I just don't feel that way with tubeless. I will say though that flatting before a race on tubeless and changing it say the day before is nerve wrecking not knowing if the seal will hold or not. I have used them on HED JET+ as long as I have had them and never had any issues but I take the time to properly set them up.

---

---

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

i don't dispute any reason a person gives as to why he's not riding tubeless. what interests me is the disparity between what the pros and the AGers do. if this was 2005, and it was lance, okay. he's got guys around him who're changing his tires, driving behind him on very ride, blending his smoothies. pro triathletes, in general, not so much. i don't think there's a big difference between the two cohorts.

if the question is, "the pros are choosing $14,000 bikes, the AGers aren't, why the disparity?" okay, i can think of non-technical reasons to explain this. but in this case, guy wants to put a tire on his jet blacks, there space between a pro's answer to that question and an AGers answer shouldn't be that big.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I was editing my post to add the personal decision dimensions, so I will re-add them. I think there are two major things influencing tire decisions. First is the perception of how much faster tubless will make them. And second is how much of an ownership hassle tubeless will be. So, this is more than just a speed thing. In my case, I believe tubeless would only make me a little faster, but it would introduce an ownership hassle I do not desire. I do not know whether either is true, it is just what I believe now. I suspect this disparity is what hold most people back from tubeless.

In many ways, I think the tubeless thing is very much like the $14K bike cost disparity. Except instead of dollars, the cost difference is perceived hassle.

I just don't see the average AGer running tubeless anytime soon. When find out they need to fuss around with sealant, air compressors, TL valves, plugs, tires that are pretty much impossible to mount etc., most will just stick to what they know works. People don't even trust latex tubes ffs...
In my case, after riding tubeless on my gravel bike I'm sold and I'll probably try some fast TL tires on my Jet blacks next season. But... I'm the type that will go through some lengths for an extra 4W in rolling resistance and I'm also pretty good at working on my bikes.

---

What's your CdA?

this doesn't make any sense to me. the difference in the $14k bike is that the pro doesn't participate in the hardship associated with that bike. you and i pay. he doesn't. with tires, i think the typical pro and the typical AGer share a similar experience.

now, me, i'm with you. tubeless was a big hassle. not worth it. until i pushed thru it. kind of like zwift. big learning curve before you really get it. then tubeless becomes easier rather than harder, if you don't get caught up into incompatibilities (which was a big thing; and is still a thing, but not like it was).

where i agree with you, if i understand you correctly, is that the difference between pros and AGers (for cases like this, where we already assume a tubeless wheel) isn't cost, or hassle, or use case. mostly it's whether the AGer is invested in getting over the learning and testing hump. as in, the incremental benefits (speed, self-sealing flats) aren't yet worth the hassle of learning to work with this tech. this makes sense to me.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Road and Tri seem to be very slow at adopting new technologies so I think you hit on the key idea that the average AGer will adopt tubeless after they try it on a gravel bike. So many road and tri people are getting a gravel bike and there are very few people in the gravel (and MTB) world that wouldn't laugh out loud at the idea of sticking a tube in a tire (unless it is for a quick repair while out on the road).

My progression to tubeless started with putting gravel tires on my MTB for a 100 mile gravel race/ride. I still wasted completely ready to do tubeless on the road bike, so my first set of GP5000s for my Jet+s were the tubed version. Those lasted about 3 months before I bought the tubeless version. Those tires now sit in the basement and I pretty much all my road stuff is tubeless. I have no idea what I will do with all those patched tubes and partially used road tires sitting the basement.

I’ve become an ok wrench and I’m pretty quick when it comes to changing tires. Clincher+tube I can get the wheel off, first bead off, tube out, new tube in, bead back on, inflate, wheel back in and back riding in 2-3minutes if I hustle on my Jet Black rims. I’ve tried the 25mm GP5000 TL. It is a huge PITA to mount and set up on Jet Black rims. If a flat on course didn’t seal or the cut was big enough to need a boot... I’m honestly not sure I could get the job done on the side of the road. If I could it would easily be 10+ minutes, a lot of stress, and a lot of swearing.

My own watt-weenie internal calculus works as follows: I’m fast enough to podium at local sprint races but if I flat I’m off the podium. At that distance tubeless makes sense as every second saved helps a lot and if I flat bad enough my day is basically over (if a flat heals itself on TL that’s great). Not so much for long course. Flat on a clincher as an age grouper and the 2-3minute hit isn’t the end of the race. A 10+ minute delay frustratingly trying to boot a tubeless tire could ruin your race.

For pros I think their calculus is similar to my AG sprint calculus: they need every second and if the flat is bad enough the tire needs a boot it doesn’t matter if it’s a 3 minute repair or a 10 minute repair.

FWIW, I have a set of UST Mavic wheels that are absolutely brilliant. Used with the Hutchinson UST tires and they’re actually easier to change than a regular clincher on my HEDs. Conti TL tires on those rims? PITA. TL needs to be as easy as that UST setup before your typical AGer makes the jump.

FWIW I’m 100% tubeless on my mountain bikes. So much easier and very effective. TL on my TT and road bikes has been mixed with regards to its effectiveness. EG Hutchinson tires seal pretty consistently (think I have 3-4 punctures I know of) but my Corsa Speed TL experience was a disaster with no adequate seals and punctures on pretty clean/pristine roads.

that all is reasonable; i just want to ask this question, because the boot thing seems to comes up frequently. if you need a boot in your tubeless tire - if the cut is that bad, that you can't plug it (while you're changing your tube i'll be plugging my tubeless tire) - what do you think is going to happen to the tube in your tubed tire?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I am going to put in my spare piece of old tire to cover the cut area(old tires have multiple uses....dog tug toys, tire boots...…..)

That’s kind of my “baseline” flat in the aforementioned calculus as unreasonable as it might be. It’s an irrational fear. Realistically it’s a 1/10 type deal with say 5/10 flats healing themselves and 4/5 of the remaining flats addressable by a plug. It’s that 1/10 that scares me with TL: having to boot and tube. Boot and tube isn’t a big deal with clinchers IMO. With GP5000 TL and Jet+ rims I’m not sure I could do the job on the side of the road.

So it’s a calculus that’s not entirely rational but I think the hassle kind of also contributes to tilting the scales. Like I said, if a really fast setup was as easy as the Mavic UST rims + tires I wouldn’t even hesitate to go with tubeless.

Here is one reason I think could explain the disparity. For pros, stopping to fix a flat is usually a complete and total blow to their race. Might as well just pack it in. Therefore any chance that a puncture might seal itself, even if it comes with a messy hassle, is a bigger incentive than it is for age groupers where losing 6 minutes would.be disappointing, but for most it would not make the race a total write-off.

Add in that except in the case of a flat that seals itself, there is no difference in speed between the best tubeless tires and a good latex setup, the reasons to switch I think are few. It comes down to, I think, whether or not one believes the sealant works more often than not at road tire pressures (I've definitely witnessed it not work and what a mess!!!), and whether one believes tubeless is more or less prone to punctures than with latex tubes. All we have on those issues are conflicting anecdotes.

I personally have experienced one flat in about 40 races over like 7 years using latex tubes. It's a record I'm pretty happy with, and that experience makes the risk/benefit ratio to switching unfavorable.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

1. People are generally averse to change. That's well established and could be enough to keep people from changing for what many clearly perceive to be marginal (or null) benefit.
2. The benefit/hassle ratio is different for someone with a free mechanic and seconds determining their payday. Even in their case I question whether TL is any faster than latex.
3. If the MFGs want to promote TL, they'll have their pros riding it. Pros want to get paid but they are also influenced by sponsors.

I would be open to use hydraulic brakes and TL tires in a bike that stays local, but not on a bike that I fly to races multiple times each year. You won't catch me draining lines and trying to seal a TL tire when I could be doing something else with my family on a racecation.