:lol::lol::lol:

Again with the confirmation. You've lost the plot, bud.

cf. posts 51, 57. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Guys, here is the truth;
None of us no what level of rider each other are because we have never been on a bike together.

overall IME the difference between ok tires and really good tires is huge. I remember when I went from michelin lithion2 to the lithio4...night and day. I ran vittoria corsa G+ for while and it is a great ride and handling tire, but I had huge flat issues. I am now running the conti 5000 no flats and almost no difference from the vittoria (am also doing a direct compare between the 5000 clinchers and vittoria corsa control tubular)

yes get conti 5000

The example I always use is the 1996 Elite Men's NCNCA (that is, Northern California Nevada) District Championship 40km TT. NCNCA is pretty competitive.

PLACE TIME NAME
-- ------- -------------------
1 52:56.3 DAVID LELAND
2 52:57.1 ANTHONY CRUZ
3 52:57.8 DAVID BAILEY
4 52:58.1 TIM GRANSHAW
5 53:00.9 GRAHAM SIMPSON

Not only did Granshaw lose a podium spot by 0.3 seconds overall over 40km -- if he'd been .05 sec/km faster he'd've won the whole damn thing. That's 1/20th of a second per km, and 1/20th of a second is literally the blink of an eye. That was the difference between winning and not standing anywhere on the podium and a long quiet drive home.

ok, an almost 1 hour TT would be something I'll concede to the advantage of rolling resistance coming into play of final placement determination. But I'd also argue that an hour TT is a pretty specific discipline.
But how many guys in here who are emphasiszing the advantage of rolling resistance do one hour TTs and thinking at the level of "1/20th of a second per km" when they're hammering with their possies or a crit around an industrial park?

And what about descending, taking fast corners, and tire feedback? The GP4000 was bunk at this as a front tire because it's got hard rubber and hard casing. I'll take Vit Corsa and Veloflex with latex for the front, easily no question asked, because those gives supreme road feedback while trail braking into a corner. This is important too if you're that type of rider!

And don'y forget, this was for Northern CA. That's a pretty limited geographical area (even accounting for those who might have come from out of district). What about riders in the other 48 1/2 states? These results say nothing about them.

your reply should be directed at mr cat1. I wasn't the one to initially brag about skills.

If he had ridden his bike more instead of spending countless hours researching marginal gains maybe he would have been 0.05 sec/km faster?

My wife missed a slot for the 70.3 championships in Nice, France by 4s across a ~5 hour race. Slightly better tires would have gotten it. It's not just cycling TTs.

You usually research marginal gains during times when you couldn't be riding.

Relax folks, let us step back and review the OP's requirement and/or desire:

This is what he asked:

Googling shows that the cheapest Conti Ultrasport is $15, and the cheapest GP5000 is $35, that's more than double the price of an Ultrasport.

But OP's questioning also brings in a sense of "value judgement" as he's asking is the difference "big enough". What is "big enough". He doesn't tell us what is big enough he's looking for, maybe because he doesn't quite completely realize all the nuances to the question he's asking.
And from the tone of his questioning, he doesn't seem he's asking because he wants to go racing, and probably he's not asking this for his time trialing effort either, does it?

On the other hand, he stated that he has put thousand of miles on the Ultrasport and they've performed reliably. So I take it that reliability is an important factor. But OP also wants to know if the GP5000 will make him really notice the difference.

Well money may not be an object (and to what extent) to the OP, but I will assume that if he's asking this question, then money and the concept of value is an object to him. Will he appreciate going 1 second faster per kilometer if he switches to GP5000s? That's 100 seconds worth of saving in a 100km ride, now some of you say, there are 2 tires, so it shold be 200 seconds saving right? Not how it works. My position on this is clear, it don't make one bit of difference, save your money. Two tires is a saving of $40, is it not? And a cut GP5000 will cost more than twice to replace. Is this a big enough difference?

I, personaly, feel like some of you just emphasis one thing, rolling resistance, without addressing the OP's overall value question much. Now if OP was asking to hellbent shaving 100 seconds off his metric century, then ok, bring in the esoteric science!

I can make the same arguments for aero helmets, aero frames, wheels, pedals, shoes, jerseys, bibs, water bottles, and even helmlet straps (yes!), etc.. At the end of the day, there can only be a few top place qualifiers and a whole lot of disappointing non-qual's, and a load of in-race variables to ponder that can put you in analysis paralysis. If she doesn't do this for a living and doing it as a personal challenge thing, she should pad herself on the back and come back next year.

...yes, you should make that same argument. You make all the right choices, including low-RR tires. It doesn't put you in analysis paralysis, it just means you optimize the system and hope to at least not lose anything to your competitors based on that. I don't know why you think that picking the right tire is hard; the work was literally already done so all you have to do is order the correct one.

Can't brag about something you don't have!

:thumb:

You keep regurgitating the same nonsense and not a single person agrees with you.

Really, what's your point, here?

Go ride slow. No one here cares.

Nah, we know.

no one cares huh? keep affirming to yourself that, cat1. You seems to be invested in this responding to me, 3 consecutive post in a row in short span, all dedicated toward me. Fragile ego much, mr cat 1 cyclist? lmao

Don't confuse my lack of concern for your below-average riding exploits as investment.

i'm just here for the lulz. Still hoping for that fourth :lol:.

Road Cycling Subforum - Come for the cycling information and camaraderie, stay for the endless urination competitions.

On bike?

To be fair, he clarified his point in a subsequent post - for him, the slightly lower RR of GP5ks isnt worth the reduction in cornering confidence and ride quality. That's fair enough.

For someone who isnt at the pointy end of things, riding comfort and price are reasonable tradeoffs to make vs marginal gains. I ride GP5ks on my TT bike instead of Corsa Speeds because for my MOP ass, I'd rather give up 15-20 seconds due to the tires than risk losing 5 minutes due to a flat (especially given what utter bastards TL tires are to mount and dismount).

Paging triathletes... yo Bah Humbug , you are up.

I agree. It does tend to derail things sometimes.

Never once done that. I know it happens, but I haven't.

Eh, that's still just part of the same decision matrix that he claims leads to analysis paralysis when applied to RR; he's taking a pile of data and picking the tire he thinks will serve him best. I still tend to think he's wrong; I've run GP4000S, SII, GP5000S, multiple Michelins, Hutchinsons, and VIttoria Corsas, and damned if I can find these supposed handling issues. Maybe they exist, but I have a hard time taking it seriously.

The mounting issue is a matter of technique. Once you know how to do it, they aren’t difficult. Key is the side of the tire that’s on first has to be pressed to the center, which is lower than where the tire seats when inflated. If you allow that side of the tire to seat before you get the second side on, it can be extremely difficult.

Same thing taking them off, you have to push in and unseat the offside first.

oh and sorry to interrupt the peeing match, I hadn’t gotten this far reading when I posted. Please carry on

Thanks merlinextraligh I'll keep my eye out for when the tyres go on sale again. Maybe I'll pick up a set. Cheers,

because I was replying to this thread with the OP's original question in mind. There is a value judgement at play.

As I see it, people in here take one aspect of tire performance (rolling resistance) in a lab and bank their entire argument on it to a question asked by someone asking a question involving value and tradeoffs. People in discussing in "absolutes" about equipment performnace in a TT (a pretty damn specific discipline), is not answering the OP's question about value and tradeoffs, does it?

But if you wanna talk competitive race scenario (not the OP's position), then I expect that in a high competition, everyone is on the same or very similar equipment already. Just look at Rchung's example, the top finishers are so precisely bunch together should clearly indicate that they're on very similar equipment, then there's not much gains to be had from an equipment route anymore (not if you keep using the same data and approach). There is absolutely no guarantee that tires alone will make that difference at a highly competitive event.

This whole "rolling resistance" emphasis being forced on newbies and weekend warriors is approaching a bit ridiculous level. There's also a lot more aspect to riding, like cornering is fun too. But speaking of "science", I haven't head anyone discuss about using different tires for the front and rear? People just casually talk as if there's not gains to be had by going this route? Surely, the front and rear tire/wheel operates in different set of forces and that slapping the same tires on the front and rear may not be optimal? But I digress from rolling resistance, aren't I

It's funny that you keep saying that people are making it in to a one-aspect argument; this is a summary of the first five posts that discuss the tire attributes -

It didn't turn in to a rolling resistance pissing match until you came in banging on the "it doesn't make a difference" drum.