Is the original “GP5000 non-tubeless tire” faster with a latex tube, or is the newest “GP5000 TT Tubeless TDF” faster with a latex tube? (My rear wheel, Zipp Super 9, is not tubeless compatible unfortunately).
Also - I’m assuming on the rear a 25mm tire will be fastest setup over a 28mm tire? Road surfaces will not be bad, just typical.
Sorry if this has been asked before - I searched but couldn’t find anything.
The clincher tire is quite a bit lighter.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/compare/continental-grand-prix-5000-latex-tube-vs-continental-grand-prix-5000-tt-tdf
This tells you the TT TDF with 20ml sealant is a little more than a watt better (but 20ml is certainly less than I’d put in a tubeless tire).
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/top-3-fastest-tubeless-vs-tubes
and
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-s-tr-tubeless-vs-tubes
seems to show that a latex inner is ~0.3W slower than 20ml sealant.
So you’d look at a little less than a watt difference in rolling resistance I suppose…
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/compare/continental-grand-prix-5000-latex-tube-vs-continental-grand-prix-5000-tt-tdf
This tells you the TT TDF with 20ml sealant is a little more than a watt better (but 20ml is certainly less than I’d put in a tubeless tire).
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/top-3-fastest-tubeless-vs-tubes
and
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-s-tr-tubeless-vs-tubes
seems to show that a latex inner is ~0.3W slower than 20ml sealant.
So you’d look at a little less than a watt difference in rolling resistance I suppose…
Great, thank you. In one of the links you sent they summed it up with…
“If you still want to run inner tubes, it’s better to go with the “regular” clincher version of the Grand Prix 5000. It’s cheaper, lighter, offers better tread puncture resistance, and will roll faster when fitted with the same inner tube.”
That’s what I wanted to know.
In our testing this isn’t the case - a GP 5000 TT is faster than a GP5000 clincher, when both are fitted with a latex tube. I’d be surprised if Brr didn’t find that as well?
In our testing this isn’t the case - a GP 5000 TT is faster than a GP5000 clincher, when both are fitted with a latex tube. I’d be surprised if Brr didn’t find that as well?
If you do the testing as carefully as you read, then you’ve got an issue. The BRR article says, that if you want to run with latex inner tube, then you’d be better with standard GP 5000 than the GP 5000 S TR. They didn’t say it for standard GP 5000 over the GP 5000 TT, probably because the GP 5000 TT is considered too fragile for running only with an inner tube.
In our testing this isn’t the case - a GP 5000 TT is faster than a GP5000 clincher, when both are fitted with a latex tube. I’d be surprised if Brr didn’t find that as well?
If you do the testing as carefully as you read, then you’ve got an issue. The BRR article says, that if you want to run with latex inner tube, then you’d be better with standard GP 5000 than the GP 5000 S TR. They didn’t say it for standard GP 5000 over the GP 5000 TT, probably because the GP 5000 TT is considered too fragile for running only with an inner tube.
You’re assuming he went to the BRR site and read the article rather than responding to this thread. Posts like yours are why fewer and fewer industry contributors take the time to offer their insights on ST.
I’m running the GP5000TT with Latex tubes and they are not fragile at all. I also have a wheel with a GP Supersonic with a Latex tube and it is far more fragile but has not been problematic
You’re assuming he went to the BRR site and read the article rather than responding to this thread.
I would have assumed he did indeed read that review, yes.
Posts like yours are why fewer and fewer industry contributors take the time to offer their insights on ST.
Well… I’m not sure this is how the cycling market (or any other for that matter) works 
I’m running the GP5000TT with Latex tubes and they are not fragile at all. I also have a wheel with a GP Supersonic with a Latex tube and it is far more fragile but has not been problematic
Congratulations then, really. It’s always a matter of probability plus your skills in avoiding road debris.
I’ve never had the GP Supersonic, but have 1 pair of GP5000 TT TdF freshly installed as tubeless for the full distance race day. With roughly 40-50ml of sealant, not 20ml as described on BRR. It had been sweeping through side walls for 2 days before sealing completely. I have ridden it outside for 150km, with no signs of puncture/sealant since then. I’d have been more afraid of running it with an inner tube though. Funny enough, I might need to use a shallower front on race day, and I don’t have another GP 5000 TT TdF available. If this happens, I’ll put a standard non-tubeless GP5000 on my gf’s front wheel (currently set-up as Canyon delivered, with GP5000 S TR and butyl inner tubes). Like on BRR page, the standard GP5000 is lightweight with decent rolling resistance and puncture protection.
You’re assuming he went to the BRR site and read the article rather than responding to this thread.
I would have assumed he did indeed read that review, yes.
Posts like yours are why fewer and fewer industry contributors take the time to offer their insights on ST.
Well… I’m not sure this is how the cycling market (or any other for that matter) works
This isn’t the cycling market. This is ST. A public forum.
Apparently you don’t get out much. This is very much how the world works. Posts are down ST. Posts here from relevant industry experts and athletes on are down. You are a random dude on the internet talking down to a guy who has riders like Mathieu van der Pol using his products to win TdF stages. He comes on here and offers insight and data. While you come on here with under a 100 posts and your contribution is vitriol. I know which one of you I want info from…
This isn’t the cycling market. This is ST. A public forum.
Look. He can be here as a private individual or a company representative. If he refers to his (their) tests, then he chooses the latter. Ergo, I expect professionalism from a professional company (again, professionalism = reading the article you’re commenting on and putting yourself in alleged opposition in terms of conclusion).
Now on the market thingy, which I didn’t want to go much into initially… Those ‘industry contributors’ are market players, interested in making profits. If they’re on any forum, it’s to directly or indirectly increase their market position, therefore sales, therefore profits. They don’t do it because they’re keen on volunteering or out of the warmth of their hearts. They might have a portfolio of forums / channels (ST, magazines, Instagram, YouTube channels etc.), where they operate. They choose where (and how much) to be active based on the forum/channel popularity and its purchase power potential. Not because I criticised somebody well-established for not reading an article he contradicted.
This isn’t the cycling market. This is ST. A public forum.
Look. He can be here as a private individual or a company representative. If he refers to his (their) tests, then he chooses the latter. Ergo, I expect professionalism from a professional company (again, professionalism = reading the article you’re commenting on and putting yourself in alleged opposition in terms of conclusion).
Now on the market thingy, which I didn’t want to go much into initially… Those ‘industry contributors’ are market players, interested in making profits. If they’re on any forum, it’s to directly or indirectly increase their market position, therefore sales, therefore profits. They don’t do it because they’re keen on volunteering or out of the warmth of their hearts. They might have a portfolio of forums / channels (ST, magazines, Instagram, YouTube channels etc.), where they operate. They choose where (and how much) to be active based on the forum/channel popularity and its purchase power potential. Not because I criticised somebody well-established for not reading an article he contradicted.
See. There you go. He didn’t contradict BRR. He said he suspects they found the same thing he did. Either way, your response was rude. Funny for you to quote professionalism and then respond in the way that you did. So, go ahead and keep justifying your behavior while you hide behind your keyboard. Unfortunately, this is pretty wide spread behavior these days.
In our testing this isn’t the case - a GP 5000 TT is faster than a GP5000 clincher, when both are fitted with a latex tube. I’d be surprised if Brr didn’t find that as well?
If you do the testing as carefully as you read, then you’ve got an issue. The BRR article says, that if you want to run with latex inner tube, then you’d be better with standard GP 5000 than the GP 5000 S TR. They didn’t say it for standard GP 5000 over the GP 5000 TT, probably because the GP 5000 TT is considered too fragile for running only with an inner tube.
Woah. Who pissed in your coffee this morning? Ever try to be nice to someone that is actually contributing as has a history of positive contributions to our shrinking community? No wonder our beloved sports are dying.
No they’re not… Guys like Xavier, Josh @ Silca, Robert Chung etc. genuinely love what they do and have made significant contributions to this community. I’d much rather continue to benefit from their actual knowledge and experience at the top of the sport rather than have this place taken over by dickheads like you. So… learn to show some respect.
Those ‘industry contributors’ are market players, interested in making profits. If they’re on any forum, it’s to directly or indirectly increase their market position, therefore sales, therefore profits. They don’t do it because they’re keen on volunteering or out of the warmth of their hearts. They might have a portfolio of forums / channels (ST, magazines, Instagram, YouTube channels etc.), where they operate. They choose where (and how much) to be active based on the forum/channel popularity and its purchase power potential. Not because I criticised somebody well-established for not reading an article he contradicted.
If you do the testing as carefully as you read, then you’ve got an issue.
This is a strangely hostile way to lead, and you’re actually the one who misread. Someone had made a point that seemingly (but not explicitly) had been made with respect to the S TR in the middle of a discussion that was mostly about the TT, and Xavier responded by clarifying what Aerocoach had seen with respect to the TT. Xavier wasn’t really responding to the BRR article, and also…
Not because I criticised somebody well-established for not reading an article he contradicted.
…did not contradict it.
Can someone explain to me please why anyone would run a tubeless with latex in it? Why not just run it as a tubeless?
Can someone explain to me please why anyone would run a tubeless with latex in it? Why not just run it as a tubeless?
Because tubeless can be messy, a pain to setup, often requires compressed air to install - all solely in the name of reducing punctures. It’s certainly not rolling resistance, as tubeless w/ sealant vs tubeless tires with latex tubes have the same rolling resistance. I guess my experience is probably unique, because I ride a couple thousand miles a year and get 0 to 1 punctures a year, and it takes me about 2-3 min to change a flat. But based on the way everyone posts about tubeless, I think the majority of people ride in rough areas and are flatting weekly - hence the desire for sealant. If I flatted that often I’d probably make the switch.
Can someone explain to me please why anyone would run a tubeless with latex in it? Why not just run it as a tubeless?
Read line 2 of post#1
Can someone explain to me please why anyone would run a tubeless with latex in it? Why not just run it as a tubeless?
I do this as I have a Latex allergy. It’s safer for me to install a Latex tube wearing nitrile gloves that to use liquid Latex which is far more messy.