Marginal Gains - on controllable variables, equipment. Road cycling

Ah, I use that site a lot but normally look at the GP5000s as that’s what I run in both tubed and tubeless at the moment. Same comparison with that tire has latex vs 20ml sealant about even:

So I guess it varies by tire, and Schwalbe must be making changes for their tubeless version that Conti aren’t. Maybe simply thicker for more puncture resistance? Or maybe related to the fact that the Schwalbe is compatible with hookless rims but the GP5000 isn’t?

Well, yeah, that’s correct! But, again, here is what bicyclerollingresistance had to say about sealant used in the GP5k:

" Continental does recommend using 30 to 60 ml of sealant for the best puncture resistance ( we recommend 30-40 ml in 25 mm tires)."

Guess what they tested with? A fraction of their minimum recommended sealant. :smiley: Wonder why? Either way, I don’t know anybody that puts about a tablespoon of sealant in their tire and thinks that’s good enough. If you roll out with 35ml of sealant in the tire it’s gonna have about the same rolling resistance as a butyl tubed tire. Maybe just a shade less. But it’s definitely going to roll worse than a latex tube.

Consumers have really, really been sold on the idea that road tubeless has the lowest road rolling resistance out there. It’s not true. Doesn’t mean tubeless has no utility. Just means if you’re going tubeless on your road bike for lower rolling resistance you shouldn’t be. Latex is better.

I think thats a reason roval are now using a tube. Data just doesnt support it. One difference is a small puncture with tubeless you might still keep going. But thats another discussion for another thread.

1 Like

Yes! If you have to fix one puncture over the course of a 40km TT that costs…what? 60 watts? :crazy_face:

Could possibly add caffeine to this list? Especially if you are not a habitual caffeine drinker, it can make a big difference during a race, although it’s quite subjective and probably can’t assign a wattage