There is essentially zero speed benefit to tubeless. Some people like the puncture resistance benefit, but tubeless will not make you faster.

You can achieve very low rolling resistance with a non-tubeless clincher tire, and either a lightweight latex or TPU inner tube.

No posts from the OP for awhile...?
Here's my short answer, as a fellow "amateur" who is not quite as strong a rider as you.

Going from an old road bike to a newer one? Not much of a difference, except in climbing. Even then, are you counting a few pounds on the bike when your body is 30 lbs. overweight? That's where I am. I'm 30 lbs. overweight. Anything less than 5 pounds on a bike is not worth my considering, because the engine is too fat.

On the other hand, if you are riding a hybrid bike or a cruiser, and thinking of going to a lightweight road bike (anything under 25 lbs.) it is a monumental difference. Not only is there less weight to haul around, but there is a BIG aerodynamic advantage as well as the riding posture making better use of your weight and your Gluteus Maximus. (butt muscles)

Example: from the Trek line-up, I had a Verve 3, hybrid-comfort bike, around 30 lbs. As those bikes go, it was pretty efficient: slight forward lean, easy rolling tires. I joined an easy group ride with the slowest group from my club, 12-14 mph pace. Just a 5-10 mph wind and a few minor hills and I was WINDED to keep up with the very slowest rider on a proper road bike. I was catching the wind like a sail, with my arms spread wide, sitting up straight, with the flat bar.

The previous week, I was on my Domane AL3. It's a humble road bike by the standards of those here. 23 lbs. before adding a saddle bag, bottle cage & bottles, pump, etc. But I was easily one of the fastest that week, having to wait.

When I ride alone on my Domane, I'm in the 14-16 mph pace range. In a group, I'm in the 15-17 mph range. (drafting and taking turns pulling) Put me on a hybrid bike and those numbers go down to 11-13 mph (average) pace and forget the group because I can't keep up with the grannies on road bikes, hehehe.

SO. For your situation, where do you stand in your BMI? Are you overweight? Obese? I think not, if you're riding 17 mph. I also think you're on a road bike. How much weight would your upgrade save you? If it saves less than 5 lbs., it probably won't help much. You might notice a slight difference on climbs and acceleration from a stop, but that's it.

I think we need to know your BMI range and how much your bike weighs and whether it is a road bike or not.

It sounds like you're in good shape now. If you're in a healthy BMI and your road bike is old and more than 5 lbs. too heavy, an upgrade would be warranted, in my humble opinion. Reward yourself for all this great progress you've made!

Compare it to my case, I'll share it in all my shame, to try to help you:

I'm an American male, 5'8" tall, 190#. At least 30# overweight, to get to the top of the "Healthy" BMI range.
I'm on a 24# Trek Domane. Spending a bunch of money to shave 6 lbs. off the bike doesn't make ANY sense for me. I need to shave my body fat down 30# first, before I even THINK of trading dollars for ounces.

How does that compare to YOUR situation?

When I went from a 70's Schwinn Super Sport to a ~88 Trek 560, the difference felt monumental. That was shedding 5+ pounds and introducing a drastic frame geometry change. I'll never forget the feeling when I first pressed the pedals on the Trek - it was like the bike leapt forward.

I expect, that once up to speed, there would be little difference between those two bikes on flat ground. But that feeling was worth a lot, in terms of flat out enjoyment.

No upgrade since then has given me that feeling of a quantum leap. It was purely subjective, since I had no data, but was an unforgettable moment. Whether the OP has anything like that depends on the starting bike.

I don't pretend to be a physicist (though I did get a perfect score on my freshman physics final (cough, cough) - more than 40 years ago...), but you're absolutely correct as far as my understanding goes.

That's why I put acceleration in quotes. I agree that could be misleading to anyone interested in the actual physics.

The cyclist applies force over time to counteract the acceleration (negative value) due to the forces of air resistance and friction in order to maintain a constant velocity, but the cyclist is not accelerating.
(force over time is, evidently, "impulse" - I had to look it up, I don't remember that term from freshman physics)
(not sure "air resistance" meets the physics definition of "drag")

This is an older steel bike, 20 years old. It weighs 18lbs 4oz as it sits with heavy wheels and saddle. Something like this would serve the op well.

Steel isn’t only for boat anchors.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...bf234da50.jpeg

That is a very odd way to put it. An actual physicist or (in my case) engineer would talk about resistive forces, not resistive accelerations. Acceleration is only relevant when the mass you are considering is actually accelerating ie the applied force and the resistive forces are not in equilibrium. So first you work out the net force acting on the mass and then you calculate the resultant acceleration from F=ma. At constant speed, net force and acceleration are zero.

It does.

Newton is rotationally accelerating in his grave....

Pro cycling's no longer obsessed with bike weight, but seems that too many BFers are still slow on the uptake. Recommending anything with round tubes and shallow rims and thinking it'll make a difference over another round-tubed and shallow-rimmed bike, just... no.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...72167f3387.png
Analysing nine years of GCN pro bike checks: here's why bikes are getting heavier

It doesn't matter what you ride...... that you're riding at all........ weeeeee ! .......now that's something wonderful to behold !

As I age I find flexibility, strength and weight to be the biggest factors for cyling. It's not the wheels or the frame or the disc brakes or anything else. If I want to brake faster, lose some weight. If I want to climb the hill faster? Lose some weight. If I want to rid longer distance with comfort, work on my mobility. It's almost entirely on my body.

That said, cycling is a hobby and the bike is part of it and fun. Have fun, ride what makes you happy. But don't be under any delusions that unless you're already the perfect specimen, the biggest improvement will be you, not the bike.

Yes, pros are riding faster than ever before, and it's because they are riding heavier bikes. Nothing else has changed in recent years that could possibly explain the speed increase.

Makes perfect sense.

Yes you are correct that using lightweight tubes there is minimal increase in rolling resistance over tubeless, though there is still an increase. With more typical butyl tubes the increase in rolling resistance is significant and it will make you faster. If I ran light-weight tubes only, I would flat on about every other ride. I may not live in the goat head capital of the world, but it's at least a contender. So, to run tubes, I need heavier tubes, Slime or equivalent, and tire liners or foam inserts, which I do run on some bikes. But tubeless is still most efficient and pretty close to flat-proof.

Not true in all cases. A Grand Prix 5000 clincher with a latex tube has a slightly lower rolling restistance than a Grand Prix 5000 Tr tubeless, according to bicyclerollingresistance.com.

I'm not sure what you're seeing on their website. Here's a plot from their article on running GP 5000 S TR tubeless and with various tubes. But again, I agree that the difference between some of these is, as shown, only a fraction of a watt and not reason enough to run tubeless. But in my original post I simply said "If nothing else, get good tires like Continental GP 5000 and run tubeless if possible." I certainly wasn't claiming that running tubeless was going to make a huge difference. More of it's just that much better, for efficiency as well as flat prevention.

Though as shown below, it could amount to about 5 W total from two tires between tubeless and the worst tubes they tested. I'll take a 5 W improvement when I can get it, especially when I get near flat-proof protection.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...eless-vs-tubes



https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e02333f6dc.png

The technology to reach the 6.8 kg limit on pro bikes was reached years ago, but pro teams trying to win bike races by being fastest to the finish line are purposely using heavier bikes because of reasons.

Makes perfect sense.

When you want a new bike.

I'm seeing this on their website, presented as evidence that tubed clincher is not always slower than tubeless. At 100-102 psi, rolling resistance:

Grand Prix 5000 25 clincher with latex tube: 8.9 watts
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...694283966a.png

Grand Prix 5000 25 TR with sealant: 9.2 Watts

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...91050284f2.png

im a fat boy, 6’2 240-260. I got a carbon bike, and tend to disparage it and my need for it, especially when thinking about watts per kilo on the hills, is a lighter bike meaningful when the rider is fat?

after returning to a steel commuter, I think the main performance differences show themselves when trying to accelerate. On the light bike, it’s a tad easier to accelerate, and in a race or a group ride environment, the acceleration is the aspect that will drop you.

this is an argument for fancy bikes helping you in group rides.

You're comparing two different tires.

It seems to me what the pro road industry is currently trending towards lessing Air resistance, not only the bike but the rider and what they wear head to toe. Anything to reduce wind resistance as I believe that is a bigger factor in speed increases than just weight. Weight in numbers is an easy thing to fixate on since anyone can weigh their bikes, parts and themselves. Wind resistance is difficult to translate into relatable terms, or to see tangible benefits. There's power meters/metrics for the riders relative strength, but there's no on the bike real time wind resistance meters that tells the riders what a drag their frame, clothing or positioning is. Plus the apparent friction that can't be measured in any way, all the seemingly conflicting ideas within oneself. "I can, no I can't ... I'm fast, no I'm slow ..... I'm this, no I'm that"..... effing three ring circus of monkey mind nonsense !

If I was a paid pro I can understand pursuing that, but I'm not, so I don't. With nothing to gain or lose there is a certain for lack of a better term, "liberation" no matter what appears as happening.

In an ideal world the pro teams would obviously want their bikes to be right on the UCI minimum weight. But they have purposely made a small weight trade-off to achieve a faster overall solution. Bike weight is less important to performance than obsessive weight weenies imagine.

Yes, obviously, a GP 5000 clincher vs a GP 5000 TR (tubeless ready). It wouldn't be very useful to compare a tubeless tire to itself with a tube in it, now would it? People who have bought into the tubeless trend aren't going to be inclined to put an icky old tube in there.

My assertion stands: a clincher tire with a latex tube can be as efficient, or more efficient, as a similar tubeless version of that tire.

Yep, I feel your pain. This is a variant of, "If I can see it or measure it easily, it must be important; if I can't, it's safe to assume it's negligible." That's often a practical response; nonetheless, it took a long while for people to believe in the germ theory of disease cuz they couldn't see it, and that's probably pretty important.

There are some on-bike (nearly) real-time devices that can tell you what your aero drag is, but right now they're expensive and kinda finicky. That said, the issue is really the "real-time" requirement. If you don't need real-time and you understand how to analyze the data, you can do it after the ride. If you're careful, it's possible to estimate the differences between positions and equipment.

What if I'm NOT careful and just do it a lot of times?