Sierra_rider

Any reputation for "tubeless hassle," was established in the early days of tubeless road tires. The wheels, tires, and sealant are much better now IMO. The GP5k TR works very well with tubeless. I'm running the Stan's "race" sealant, which works better than the standard Stan's IMO, and has a longer life. On my latest bike, I set the wheels up with Muc-Off valves...they come with different profile o-rings/washers/whatever you want to call them, that work with a variety of different rim shapes.

Bald Paul

To sum up the expert analysis: faster things will be a bit faster.

hayden52

So far, nobody has mentioned inner tubes. For me, I run Vittoria Rubino Pro G2's, and the biggest difference I have made on my bike lately is going to latex tubes over butyl. The ride is SO much smoother, and it feels faster (they say latex can reduce power effort by 7W at 25MPH).

terrymorse 

Using either latex or TPU tubes with non-tubeless GP5K tires will produce the same rolling resistance as the tubeless-ready tires. Without the need to use liquid sealant.

mstateglfr 

...and without the sealing properties of tubeless.
Odd that you highlight the feature and ignore the obvious drawback.

Sierra_rider

For me, rolling resistance was only a secondary reason for going tubeless, the primary reason was flat resistance.

terrymorse 

You're right, my oversight.

Tubeless is far superior to the tubed alternative, in every way.

Except for ease of installation, ease of maintenance, rolling resistance, weight, cost.

mstateglfr 

You are being absurd and responding to claims or comments that I didn't make.

I do not think tubeless is far superior in every way. I only have 1 tubeless bike and 5 tubed bikes, so your over the top outburst really missed the mark for multiple reasons.

terrymorse 

Odd that I see this "over the top" critique. I could do over the top, but I'm far too mellow and restrained for such behavior.

mstateglfr 

I pointed out that when comparing, you cited a benefit on one style and didn't cite a benefit for the other or cite a downside for the first.
You responded with sarcasm and then took an extreme opposite position from what you actually think.

Yeah, I view that as over the top.

Jrasero

You will be marginally better. IMO it comes down to feel which can help you feel more comfortable going faster. A set of decent lightweight, stiff, aero wheels with some grippier slick tires will not make you better but will allow you to feel and respond better to the road.

terrymorse 

Fair enough. I was going for "light hearted banter".

LarrySellerz

the point of my post was when buying speed, position change>>>tires>wheels>>> upgrading other components to be lighter to get the most bang for your buck.

my claim about the gp5k is that they are overpriced and people are paying for the name, like cuisine art. Still fast tires.

Eric F 

Some people like the supple ride quality of GP5000s, and appreciate the grip of the Black Chili rubber compound.. Some people can't recognize the difference.

genejockey 

I wish I'd bought a bunch of them back when ProBikeKit had them for $40 each.

tomato coupe

I've always liked cuisine art -- especially if it involves avocados -- and I've always found it to be reasonably priced.

RChung

I'd put handlebars between tires and wheels.

mstateglfr 

what is cuisine art and in what world is it in demand to the point of being overpriced?
Is it art that is made using food?
Is it art that is images/sculptures of food?
Is it art that is the presentation of food?


You still haven't said what tires are better for a cheaper price. And you also haven't said what price gp5k tires would have to be at to not be overpriced.
Lay some of your expertise out so the rest of us can admire it.

LarrySellerz

It’s a famous brand. You’re paying in part for name recognition.

mstateglfr 

Oh good lord. Cuisinart?
Here I thought you were referring to something I hadn't heard of, but it just ends up you don't know the brand you are referencing.

PeteHski

Sealant is actually optional with some tubeless tyres. I ran my mountain bikes for years tubeless, without any sealant. Of course you then get flats just like you do with tubed tyres, but at least you can repair them in situ much faster with a plug kit. Adding sealant just makes flats a lot less likely and you can still plug any larger holes - which doesn’t work with sealant filled tubes.

Some tyres do require sealant to seal the sidewalls if they are porous, but a lot don’t. When I’m being lazy (often after a winter break) I will often ride my bikes with dried out sealant and they work just fine. Obviously you lose the flat protection, which is the primary advantage of adding sealant. The only reason why sealant is not so popular in tubed tyres is because it is much less effective at sealing a blown out thin tube vs a punctured tyre.

Sealant only really gets potentially messy if you are forced into fitting a tube at the roadside, which I have never had to do with any tubeless setup in 20 years.

PeteHski

A heavier wheel does take more effort to accelerate, but it’s a lot less than you are probably thinking. SwissSide did some modelling of crits, flat and mountain TTs and found that wheel weight was only significant for climbing times. The small difference in acceleration time on the crit course was completely dwarfed by the aero gains (orders of magnitude higher). This was with a 400g heavier aero wheel set.

Momentum favours the heavier wheel set on any surface. It is only a disadvantage when you are actively braking to lose speed and then need to accelerate back up to speed. If you are pedalling along and trying to maintain speed then a heavier wheel set will actually make this easier on any surface, rough or smooth.

Wheel weight might well be a significant percentage of your bike weight, but once you add in rider weight it is much less dramatic. 8 lbs of wheels/tyres is less than 5% of total rider/bike weight, even for a lightweight climber.

Lighter wheels subjectively “feel” nicer and maybe that’s enough to justify them. I certainly don’t have heavy wheels on my bikes. But I’m always mindful of the objective performance reality. It’s just not that significant unless you are competing in a mountain TT where a few seconds might be important.

Kai Winters

Marginal, very marginal, at best considering the speed you state.
Perhaps better tires would give a bit less rolling resistance thus a tiny gain in speed.
You'd likely get the largest speed increase/improvement by your position on the bike but again at the speeds you state it is marginal at best.
Want to go faster...train for it

Eric F 

I have. It wasn't a big deal, really.

cyclezen

Of course you're welcome to believe whatever you think ... I could do my usual post lengthy, but not gonna completely hijack this thread...
Aero is certainly king for much of what we're talking about - and for that the human and 'position' is by far the biggest thing. So lets set aero aside as a 'given'.
I did watch that video again and same conclusions.... Their 'real world' study is not there. as They noted , they did a lot of 'simulation', not actual measurement - from a group focused on their business, Aero Stuff. I'm all about and for science, but there is well substantiated science, and some which is not that. Let's see how the data was gathered and what it is...
The Crit (as with most Brit based stuff) is on an enclosed course, no real corners - we could talk about many, maybe most real Crits, which have constant, sharp deccel & accel out of sharp corners... ****** road surfaces with drains, potholes, many possible traps...

Flywheel effect - certainly true, but so is energy loss.
Flywheel effect fades rapidly for your average rider who rides a rolling course which longer rollers which might be 4-5% grades - very common around here... In a group, you're off the back. Alone you're 10 ish seconds slower , especially at the crest, and so slower resuming a faster pace. All Additive...
Climbing longer uphillls, well I think most everyone will climb better with lighter gear... I don't know anyone in some hundreds of riders (prollu more like thousands) who has contradicted that in their approach - and certainly is true even in the higher rungs of today's sport - with adapting for the conditions.
I've done my own 'studies', and lighter comes out always faster - in some significant way.
So, why are riders spending up over $10K these days for the lightest bikes available? Certainly the aero advantages of the thousands less cost bikes are equal...
My suggestion, let each rider do their own comparison - if you have an older machine (of most any age older) and recently bought a newer machine/bike. Do some equal comparison...
decide for yourself...
Yeah, of course, the argument can be better/more choice in 'gearing', 'comfort' (maybe...).etc. But 'faster' is 'faster'... So New Bike or Old Bike - faster?
In my case
A very equal time trial of 10 miles on a light rolling course with no marked stops, equal enviromental conditions & apparent wind, aero hoods position, same kit. 3 bikes. 2009 Spec tarmac 56cm 17.6 lbs, 2023 Trek Emonda 56 cm 21.5 lbs, 1984 Colnago Master, 58cm 21.5 lbs The Tarmac by far the fastest by 26 sec. Emonda was the slowest 42 sec. behind the Tarmac. the Colnago was 26 sec behind the Tarmac (and the least aero by both position and tech). My 2014 Tarmac is always 'faster' than the 2009 (more aero and efficient), but the 2009 tarmac is my weekday ride...
Aero matters, Wheels matter, Weight matters... and, of course, the motor, most of all.
Just my view from almost 40 years of very strong involvement in competitive cycling...
Ride On
Yuri