I see you points. But your scenario only mainly comes into significance if 1) you're riding steady-state, 2) on the flat, 3) without much wind, 4) without much cornering, 5) your front and rear weight distribution is 50/50 ratio.
In real world situation, things are not this ideal to allow you to realize the rolling-resistance superiority of the GP5000.
The advantage of drafting makes the advantage of rolling resistance a low priority on the list of "things to do". I see plenty of (presumably timid) riders not willing, or unable to draft effectively.
In mountain descents, cornering counts, and the GP5000 is not the top performer in cornering, not close.

while the argument of "if you could use less wattage to go the same speed, then you'd be able to go further" sounds compelling from a strictly quantitative point of view, but in the real world riding, real world century'ing with your buddies, real world racing, nobody has won or lost anything based on tire rolling resistance. It makes very little sense to place great emphasis on tire rolling resistance between all the "top tier tires". And this is my main point. (And Gatorskin is not a top tier tire.)

:lol::lol:

Rolling resistance doesn't go away in those situations. Better rolling tires are still better rolling in various situations; drafting, sprintng, up a climb, down, headwind, tailwind, etc.

I'd rather spend some money on some nice, comfy tires than spend 5-10x that on some ceramic bearings for my derailler pulleys that might give me a fraction of those watt savings and ride some hard, crappy tires.

I really liked the performance and cornering but after three days and three flats I took the GP5000 clinchers off. Not sure if there'd be much of a demand for some used GP5000s (400 miles) on eBay.

After my mellow is less harshed I may try the tubeless.

Umm, what exactly do you think these "top tier" tires have in common?? It's low rolling resistance. That is precisely what makes a tire fast. When you can combine that with decent puncture resistance, and good grip, you have a fantastic all around tire that you can even race on, like the GP5K.

Someone who can go fast on a crappy tire, can go even faster on a good tire, it's pretty simple. Mechanically, tires/tubes are one of the best bang for your buck improvements you can make. Position/kit being the biggest areas for speed gains.

No it doesn't. By reducing aerodynamic drag and allowing higher speeds, drafting makes rolling resistance more relatively significant: it becomes a greater fraction of overall resistance.

Can someone show me just ONE example where rolling resistance of say a GP4000/5000 tire vs say a Schalbe, Vittoria, Michelin tire make a difference in anything?
Meanwhile, I shall continue to wait for any bro and Fred in their Conti GP tires to pull away from me and my cheapo Vittoria Rubino's. Yawn.

This question being asked - and mostly the matter being discussed - is less about how different brands compare with each other than how different types of quality tiers of tire compare. Nobody in here is saying that you're an idiot if you run Vittoria-branded tires. When people are saying "GP5000 is a noticeable improvement", they're saying it's a noticeable improvement over Conti's entry-level tires (since that's what the OP asked about), not that it makes Corsa Speeds look like garden hoses or whatever.

I run Michelin Power Protection+ for my morning training rides so I can spend more power for the safe speed on the MUP and get in a better workout while time-limited. Different perspective on the situation.

But never a Gatorskin.

As HTupolev mentioned, it's not necessarily the brand, but the model. I'm sure all the top tier tires are pretty similar in performance. I don't think anyone can tell the difference in a few watts, but once you start talking 10/15/20w, you can tell.

I can beat a lot of people on my 40mm knobby gravel tires, it doesn't mean that I'm not faster on a faster tire.

The tires save a handful of watts - not important.
The race-fit jersey and aero road helmet saves a handful of watts - not imporant
An aero frame saves a handful of watts - not important
Aero wheels save a handful of watts - not important

Add all these things up, though...? The difference matters.

Let me put it another way - leaving aside solo training/winter wheels where speed doesnt matter, why would you give up the benefits, even if they are minimal? I mean, if there are benefits that you prefer in other tires, sure, i get it - hell, as I said earlier in the post, i dont use GP5ks for group rides, preferring the ride quality of Turbo Cottons instead, even if they cost me a few watts - but spurning free watts, no matter how few, just because you think it doesnt matter seems illogical.

That said, i hope more people racing M45-49 feel the same way :)

Continental Competitions are one of the top tubulars you can buy from Continental.

Pros don't use Continental Competitions, they use Competitions Ltd., which the public can't buy.

Guess what the difference is? Guess why they have that difference?

You have chosen... wisely.

Latex tubes?

Bingo.

The reduced rolling resistance..."makes a difference."

I've found them on Amazon and elsewhere for near $80 for a pair. I personally feel like at that price point they are a worthwhile investment. Been using them on multiple bikes, in multiple sizes, all without issue.

The issue with your argument is that
1) most people on the internet buying these tires are not racers. It's like that old baldy guy dirivng his 700hp Ferrari down the ocean boulevard. The Ferrari gives no advantage over a Camary when you're crusing at 45 mph down the boulevard. Same with GP5000.
2) the "watt saving" shown labs and in the wind tunnel are based on controlled environment that is not a true representatio of real world. Sure you'll still save some watts, the but watt saving in real world is not seen in a controlled environment.

Now if you tell me that guys are riding on a metal drum in a wind tunnel, in a static position, in a static power delivery like on a tire drum test rig, then sure... by all means go get some GP5000.

And what about handling? GP5000s suck compare to Vittoria and Veloflex Corsa as far as giving feedback around corners. On a mountain descent, I can pull out 3-5 meters on each corner using Vittoria and Veloflex compared using a harder tire like the GP5000. Does 3-5 meters per corner count when you're trying to go fast? Of course it does. Does this advantage show up on the tire drum in the lab? Of course it won't.

And round and round we go...

Apparently you can't handle a bike very well. I routinely distance people in corners while riding Continentals.

Uh Oh. It looks like someone isn’t keeping up with the Marginal Gains podcast.

To be clear, I am not *arguing* with you. You do you, I have no issues with that. Think of this as more of a discussion than anything even remotely adverserial.

That said, re your 2 points, here are my thoughts:
1/ Sure, most people dont race. But they still like to go as fast as possible. That's why they buy carbon wheels, aero frames, etc. This is just more of the same, although with fewer tradeoffs (it isnt as if you are spending a lot more money to get some extra speed - GP5ks cost about the same as pretty much any other nice tire)
2/ I do agree that the watt savings in a lab may not translate to the same number in the real world - but it doesnt have to be lower. It could even be higher, for all we know. Regardless, in the absence of any numbers, doesnt it make sense to go with the tire that has greater odds of being faster, all else being equal?

The "all else being equal" is, admittedly, key. Handling and ride quality are great reasons to ride something else - on that front, not only do I agree with you here but also in practice: i ride Turbo Cottons and Veloflex myself, as well. There are logical reasons for not getting the GP5ks.

There is a difference between the following 2 statements:
- The extra watt savings of the GP5k are irrelevant
- The extra watt savings of the GP5k are not worth giving up on the ride feel/cornering abilities of the Veloflex Corsas

The former is illogical and cannot really be defended via arguments, other than "well, i dont care" (and I dont mean it in a judgemental way - hobbies dont have to be fully rational. I collect watches, FFS - talk about a rabbit hole devoid of reason). The latter makes a lot of sense.

ah gotcha my man!! And if you notice, I haven't argued that there isn't a rolling resistance advantage of the Conti either, but I'm arguing that people are putting WAY too much emphasis on ONE criteria of "going fast in the real world". Going fast involve a gazillion variables, and rolling resistance isn't a top one unless your cycling discipline is a very specific one matching that of the lab environment. Laboratory "watt saving" is always going to be higher than what is realized in real world. Always. You don't really need to ponder about this.

ugh oh..

This is what I said:

Notice that I was making a reference to myself, you know what they say, control the variables in testing right?
I wasn't bragging about my skills versus others.
But you didn't waste any opportunity to make an assesstment on my skills, did you?
But what the hell do I know about bike handling? I mean I've only dragged my knees at 80-100 mph around the local race track probably at least 100 sessions in the past decade or so, and still live to tell about it today. What do I really know compare to a superior cat1 cyclist like yourself! Pipe down, pal:lol:

Your skills, you knowledge: all lacking.

What do you know? Clearly very little, as is evidenced by each successive post you make. But you keep doubling down on your ignorance concerning the topic, and I'll keep laughing at it.

This "ONE criteria" has one of the most significant effects on speed that you can make from an equipment perspective; more important than wheels, frame, etc. For some inexplicable reason this escapes you. It is one of "a gazillion variables" most pertinent for emphasis when it comes to stuff that goes on your bike.

Perhaps you actually do need to ponder more about this. Don't strain yourself, though. I'm sure you're not well used to it.

Here's a plot that translates the difference between a Conti GP4K (already a pretty good tire) and a Conti GP5K in terms of equivalent weight at different gradients. If you're a weight weenie, you should definitely be a Crr weenie.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...63fb5a656c.png

so you keep laughing at my lack of skills/knowledge will make you better? Dude, you sound a little hurt inside or what?
Wake me up when tires make a differnce in someone winning or losing in a race. Only weekend warriors seem to focus on tires to this extent. Reminds of guys on the track getting passed on the brakes and then they blame it on having subpar brakes and tires. You understand that winning is first and foremost a state of mind. At some point you'll need to stop looking for marginal gains and start training a winning mind! Trust me pal I've competed at much higher level of 2 wheel sport than you could realize at your local cat1 bro's brawl.

Brag about your motorcycle a few more times; I think it’s working.