It was already going to be a popular tire, but it looks like it might get even more popular after these results:
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 
Wow, and bike closet has them for 54.99 right now. Might have to splurge on a couple. Good to see some actual data.
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.
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.
Thanks for sharing. While I am all for data I would have preferred to see this test done with:
- a deep front wheel of some sort, preferably a wider one
- as a wheel only test
Interesting that the GP5000 was also narrower but tested worse at low yaw than the wider GP4000.
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 
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…
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
Very nice data, this is gonna be a cash cow for 10+years for continental no doubt.
Any data on the puncture resistance yet?
yes, the GP TT is a popular tire.
It was already going to be a popular tire, but it looks like it might get even more popular after these results:
Thanks for sharing. While I am all for data I would have preferred to see this test done with:
- a deep front wheel of some sort, preferably a wider one
- 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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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!
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 ?
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.