New Continental GP 5000 tyre is 4.3 watts faster than outgoing GP 4000 say aero testing specialists

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Oh Dave, what makes you think I'm "angry", just annoyed that your cut and paste article misses points that are very valid and that you failed to address, or rather you didn't understand, you're normally very good at these cut and paste none reviews ... oh wait.

Because you are? 

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Oh Dave, what makes you think I'm "angry", just annoyed that your cut and paste article misses points that are very valid and that you failed to address, or rather you didn't understand, you're normally very good at these cut and paste none reviews ... oh wait.

Because you are? 

How can you tell, especially as you're wearing a helmet which we know deadens your capacity to think?

BehindTheBikesheds]</p>

<p>[quote=Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Oh Dave, what makes you think I'm "angry", just annoyed that your cut and paste article misses points that are very valid and that you failed to address, or rather you didn't understand, you're normally very good at these cut and paste none reviews ... oh wait.

Because you are? 

How can you tell, especially as you're wearing a helmet which we know deadens your capacity to think?

[/quote

Case in point.

Paul__M wrote:

I thought it was pretty obvious that this particular test was aimed at the TT/Tri nerds. I think the most valid criticsm is that a box section wheel was used - could have a big effect on the aero, you can never assume anything is striaghtforward with aero.

According to these guys most riding is at low yaw angles https://www.flocycling.com/aero.php , but then that's gotta depend on the prevailing winds you ride.

I'm one of those nerds. I would really enjoy blasting past you at 28mph, because I would. You would get to watch my back wheel for a wee while until I faded from your plodding view

Sorry, but you reap what you sow dick

KiwiMike wrote:

1. 23mm tyre

2. 90PSI pressure

3. 45km/hr

 

These three assumptions mean from the very outset, this study is useless to 99.9999% of today's cyclists.

 

Anyone still riding 23mm tyres on today's British* roads neeeds a sit-down and a quiet word - the world moved on about 10 years ago from emulating 80's pro riders. As did most pro riders.

I run 23's on 17mm internals and they're absolutely perfect.  The 4 Seasons on my winter bike are absolutely fine and the Vittoria's on the summer bike even better.  Don't think i'd want for any more width really.

The 45km/hr thing is not for me though!

KiwiMike wrote:

1. 23mm tyre

2. 90PSI pressure

3. 45km/hr

 

These three assumptions mean from the very outset, this study is useless to 99.9999% of today's cyclists.

You could say the same for the premium clothing brands or the titanium and handbuilt steel bikes reviewed on this and many other websites. FFS no-one's forcing you to buy them, and that's a very silly number anyway. You could ask Continental how many pairs of GP4000s tyres they sell every year.

KiwiMike wrote:

Anyone who can put meaningful power down at speeds at or above 45km/hr for more than a few seconds probably has a coach to tell them all this stuff anyway.

45 km/h (28 mph) is a 53-minute 25 mile TT or sub-22 minute '10'. A good number of people can do that on a fast course. I'm far from being fast - I'm usually in the bottom half of a result sheet - but even I can average almost 25 mph on a flat course. I ride on fast rolling 23mm tyres inflated to 90~100 psi.

Even if people don't race why shouldn't they want to ride on light, supple, fast-rolling tyres like these? Or do you think we should all be made to ride heavy touring bikes on Marathon Plus tyres and wear scratchy wool shorts?

Simon E wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

1. 23mm tyre

2. 90PSI pressure

3. 45km/hr

 

These three assumptions mean from the very outset, this study is useless to 99.9999% of today's cyclists.

45 km/h (28 mph) is a 53-minute 25 mile TT or sub-22 minute '10'. A good number of people can do that on a fast course. I'm far from being fast - I'm usually in the bottom half of a result sheet - but even I can average almost 25 mph on a flat course. I ride on fast rolling 23mm tyres inflated to 90~100 psi.

Even if people don't race why shouldn't they want to ride on light, supple, fast-rolling tyres like these? Or do you think we should all be made to ride heavy touring bikes on Marathon Plus tyres and wear scratchy wool shorts?

I have no beef with aeroists wanting to save a few watts. As I said, such stuff is irrelevant to 99.9999% of cyclists, who will never ride a 10 on rock-hard skinny tyres. 

I just found it very odd that Conti would use such an irrelevant study as the launch PR for a new product that will actually be used by a much wider group of users, who will benefit from aspects like ability to run lower pressure, have better grip, more comfort, lower fatigue and less power wasted due to suspension losses over rough roads etc. 

I am the biggest champion around for light and supple. In this case, wider (28mm+) and lower pressure means lower suspension losses, more comfort, better grip and puncture resistance. 

KiwiMike wrote:

Simon E wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

1. 23mm tyre

2. 90PSI pressure

3. 45km/hr

 

These three assumptions mean from the very outset, this study is useless to 99.9999% of today's cyclists.

45 km/h (28 mph) is a 53-minute 25 mile TT or sub-22 minute '10'. A good number of people can do that on a fast course. I'm far from being fast - I'm usually in the bottom half of a result sheet - but even I can average almost 25 mph on a flat course. I ride on fast rolling 23mm tyres inflated to 90~100 psi.

Even if people don't race why shouldn't they want to ride on light, supple, fast-rolling tyres like these? Or do you think we should all be made to ride heavy touring bikes on Marathon Plus tyres and wear scratchy wool shorts?

I have no beef with aeroists wanting to save a few watts. As I said, such stuff is irrelevant to 99.9999% of cyclists, who will never ride a 10 on rock-hard skinny tyres. 

I just found it very odd that Conti would use such an irrelevant study as the launch PR for a new product that will actually be used by a much wider group of users, who will benefit from aspects like ability to run lower pressure, have better grip, more comfort, lower fatigue and less power wasted due to suspension losses over rough roads etc. 

I am the biggest champion around for light and supple. In this case, wider (28mm+) and lower pressure means lower suspension losses, more comfort, better grip and puncture resistance. 

I ride weekly with 60-100 guys, we average 40 - 42 kph over a given hilly course and spend plenty of time at above 50 kph. About 80% of us ride 23mm - 25mm tyres at about 90 psi on rough New Zealand roads. My teeth aren't shaken out of their sockets. These figures are absoutely relevant to most of the racing fraternity.  About1% of racers ride a 28mm tyre, because they're heavier and (probably) slower.... I will back a 90- 100 psi 23mm against a 28mm 70 psi on some smooth top anytime

KiwiMike wrote:

As I said, such stuff is irrelevant to 99.9999% of cyclists, who will never ride a 10 on rock-hard skinny tyres.

These tests have been done because many people interested in the comparison with the GP4000.

Do you not have any idea as to the number of people who ride TTs, road races, triathlon, sportives & other events on these and similar tyres? Try asking Conti's UK distributor Cambrian Tyres how many GP4000s they sell in 23mm & 25mm vs the other models/sizes you think are so much better.

Instead of being so derogatory because this tyre doesn't fit your parameters, why not suggest some 28mm+ tyres and pressures you'd recommend for racing / fast riding? And get that stuck 9 key fixed.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

4.3w at 28mph is utterly meaningless to Joe Public.

Joe Public is not in the market for new tyres at £40-50 each. Watts are used to compare tyres just as they do with frames, tri-bars, wheels, skinsuits, chains, jockey wheels and so on. Road racers, TTers, triathletes etc will care about 4w, which is probably worth more than you suggest. Even Mamils will like the idea of saving a few watts and most of us care about whether manufacturers' claims are more than just hype.

Simon E wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

4.3w at 28mph is utterly meaningless to Joe Public.

Joe Public is not in the market for new tyres at £40-50 each. Watts are used to compare tyres just as they do with frames, tri-bars, wheels, skinsuits, chains, jockey wheels and so on. Road racers, TTers, triathletes etc will care about 4w, which is probably worth more than you suggest. Even Mamils will like the idea of saving a few watts and most of us care about whether manufacturers' claims are more than just hype.

This. 

A big market is numpties like me, who occasionally bike in between a swim and a run (or used to, at least).

The few watts saved on the bike are gladly lapped up not solely to 'go faster', but if you can go at the same-ish speed for a bit less effort (or even perceived effort), your legs don't half thank you for it during the 10k/HM/Marathon.

Added up, they could also be the difference between burning all your matches on a TT, or having a bit of a kick for the last K. 

Plenty of scoffing at the marketing - fair enough. But I've talked to loads of starters and finishers on ironmans who buy into it. Who knows how powerful that psychological effect is: who hasn't gone out and ridden faster than the pure performance benefits might suggest, just because they've got a new bike/new wheels/new 2g lighter carbon bottle holder?

Duplicate post.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why didn't they test the new tyre against the 4000RS? Is it because the manufacturers already knew the RS was a better rolling tyre than their new 'baby'? And why would they test the 23mm only, not measure accurate weights (compared to manufacturers spec), not measure the actual inflated tyre widths and do the tests at different pressures? Oh and testing only on a shallow alu rim, what the actual fuck, how is that remotely reflective of the type of rim the market will be riding on, even a 32mm rim could at least have given a nod to how many riders will not be using box section rims with these tyres. These people are clearly not capable of doing even basic tests properly with hugely important easily measured data left out. So Dave, it's not "clear" at all even with your soft caveat, when we can see the credibility of the testing company is left wanting with them failing in the most basic areas and failing to test ffor real world use, so it's another half assed test with huge amounts of important data missing. You as a bike person should know why that missing data is important yet you thought it worthy to include this pathetic test, why when it's so incomplete? Would rather you front up and be honest and say the test parameters were weak and go into reasons why it was a weak test and how those factors effect the outcome of aero and crr testing, rather than copy/paste. Did you mention that the 4000 was actually MORE AERO at lower yaw angles, you know those straight ahead positions one rides at most of the time, no, you glossed over that and simply said there's not much in it a t lower angles. Rather misses an important point does it not?? Are the new tyres at one manufacturers quoted width on one rim, at one tyre pressure at two different speeds(one which most cant pedal at on a flat for more than a short period) more aero and have a lower crr, yes, I believe that. However the testing is so incomplete and missing data it's not close to being a credible test. a good reviewer should tell us why it's so poor and not be so soft with your caveat and never use the words "it's clear", when clearly it isn't except for a minute snapshot

I think you know the answer to this convoluted question. 

Just in case you didn’t, it is;

“No, fuck off, if you dont like the review or question our impartiality and objectivity then youre welcome to go read sonething else”, more or less. Conti pay better for reviews than does ad revenue from us plebs, it seems.

Crampy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why didn't they test the new tyre against the 4000RS? Is it because the manufacturers already knew the RS was a better rolling tyre than their new 'baby'? And why would they test the 23mm only, not measure accurate weights (compared to manufacturers spec), not measure the actual inflated tyre widths and do the tests at different pressures? Oh and testing only on a shallow alu rim, what the actual fuck, how is that remotely reflective of the type of rim the market will be riding on, even a 32mm rim could at least have given a nod to how many riders will not be using box section rims with these tyres. These people are clearly not capable of doing even basic tests properly with hugely important easily measured data left out. So Dave, it's not "clear" at all even with your soft caveat, when we can see the credibility of the testing company is left wanting with them failing in the most basic areas and failing to test ffor real world use, so it's another half assed test with huge amounts of important data missing. You as a bike person should know why that missing data is important yet you thought it worthy to include this pathetic test, why when it's so incomplete? Would rather you front up and be honest and say the test parameters were weak and go into reasons why it was a weak test and how those factors effect the outcome of aero and crr testing, rather than copy/paste. Did you mention that the 4000 was actually MORE AERO at lower yaw angles, you know those straight ahead positions one rides at most of the time, no, you glossed over that and simply said there's not much in it a t lower angles. Rather misses an important point does it not?? Are the new tyres at one manufacturers quoted width on one rim, at one tyre pressure at two different speeds(one which most cant pedal at on a flat for more than a short period) more aero and have a lower crr, yes, I believe that. However the testing is so incomplete and missing data it's not close to being a credible test. a good reviewer should tell us why it's so poor and not be so soft with your caveat and never use the words "it's clear", when clearly it isn't except for a minute snapshot

I think you know the answer to this convoluted question. 

Just in case you didn’t, it is;

“No, fuck off, if you dont like the review or question our impartiality and objectivity then youre welcome to go read sonething else”, more or less. Conti pay better for reviews than does ad revenue from us plebs, it seems.

Nobody pays for reviews. 

Continental don't advertise with us, and haven't for years. Although this story isn't based on anything from them anyway.

It's not a review either.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

a long paragraph of drivel

There might have been some valid points in that but it's couched in such negative and aggressive terms that I'm beginning to wonder whether BTBS is actually a rant-generating AI bot. In which case I think a few code tweaks may still be required.

Aerocoach presumably spent time and money conducting a test that we get to read about for free. I doubt they are Continental's puppet, just manipulating the data to flatter the new product and I doubt Conti would pour money into developing and promoting a tyre that is slower and/or less aero than its predecessor. Time will tell.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why didn't they test the new tyre against the 4000RS? Is it because the manufacturers already knew the RS was a better rolling tyre than their new 'baby'? And why would they test the 23mm only, not measure accurate weights (compared to manufacturers spec), not measure the actual inflated tyre widths and do the tests at different pressures? Oh and testing only on a shallow alu rim, what the actual fuck, how is that remotely reflective of the type of rim the market will be riding on, even a 32mm rim could at least have given a nod to how many riders will not be using box section rims with these tyres. These people are clearly not capable of doing even basic tests properly with hugely important easily measured data left out. So Dave, it's not "clear" at all even with your soft caveat, when we can see the credibility of the testing company is left wanting with them failing in the most basic areas and failing to test ffor real world use, so it's another half assed test with huge amounts of important data missing. You as a bike person should know why that missing data is important yet you thought it worthy to include this pathetic test, why when it's so incomplete? Would rather you front up and be honest and say the test parameters were weak and go into reasons why it was a weak test and how those factors effect the outcome of aero and crr testing, rather than copy/paste. Did you mention that the 4000 was actually MORE AERO at lower yaw angles, you know those straight ahead positions one rides at most of the time, no, you glossed over that and simply said there's not much in it a t lower angles. Rather misses an important point does it not?? Are the new tyres at one manufacturers quoted width on one rim, at one tyre pressure at two different speeds(one which most cant pedal at on a flat for more than a short period) more aero and have a lower crr, yes, I believe that. However the testing is so incomplete and missing data it's not close to being a credible test. a good reviewer should tell us why it's so poor and not be so soft with your caveat and never use the words "it's clear", when clearly it isn't except for a minute snapshot

2500 posts and this angry drivel.  You need to get out more!

Chris Hayes wrote:

I remember flicking through some German cycling magazines a few years ago which were a bit more objective with their assessment criteria:  certainly when it comes to frames, etc.  Instead of riding them and saying that they are stiffer / faster / more flexible than other frames (tried with different wheels, stems, handlebars, and seatposts !!!) they put them in a jig and measure the flex objectively, for example.... just a thought....

The practical upshot of Tour magazine doing that is that the German manufacturers design their bikes to perform well in those specific tests. It's far from clear whether being good at those tests translates into a good bike on the road. not to say there aren't objective tests we can do, but it's not the be-all and end-all. You're not buying a frame, generally speaking, you're buying a bike.

dave atkinson wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

I remember flicking through some German cycling magazines a few years ago which were a bit more objective with their assessment criteria:  certainly when it comes to frames, etc.  Instead of riding them and saying that they are stiffer / faster / more flexible than other frames (tried with different wheels, stems, handlebars, and seatposts !!!) they put them in a jig and measure the flex objectively, for example.... just a thought....

The practical upshot of Tour magazine doing that is that the German manufacturers design their bikes to perform well in those specific tests. It's far from clear whether being good at those tests translates into a good bike on the road. not to say there aren't objective tests we can do, but it's not the be-all and end-all. You're not buying a frame, generally speaking, you're buying a bike.

Possibly...I kmnw Mr Dyson has some pretty strong views on German testing....but they do test other bikes too.   But I buy a frame and build a bike...never bought a bike in my life. 

dave atkinson wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

I remember flicking through some German cycling magazines a few years ago which were a bit more objective with their assessment criteria:  certainly when it comes to frames, etc.  Instead of riding them and saying that they are stiffer / faster / more flexible than other frames (tried with different wheels, stems, handlebars, and seatposts !!!) they put them in a jig and measure the flex objectively, for example.... just a thought....

The practical upshot of Tour magazine doing that is that the German manufacturers design their bikes to perform well in those specific tests. It's far from clear whether being good at those tests translates into a good bike on the road. not to say there aren't objective tests we can do, but it's not the be-all and end-all. You're not buying a frame, generally speaking, you're buying a bike.

Possibly...I kmnw Mr Dyson has some pretty strong views on German testing....but they do test other bikes too.   But I buy a frame and build a bike...never bought a bike in my life.