Aero specialists Aerocoach have tested the brand new Continental GP 5000 tyre at the Boardman Performance Centre and found it to provide a 4.3 watt improvement over the outgoing GP 4000 at 45kph (28mph).
Continental launched the GP 5000 just over a week ago and made some impressive claims for the new tyre in all key aspects of its performance compared to the previous GP 4000. It claimed the new tyre offers 12% lower rolling resistance, 20% improved puncture resistance, more grip, comfort and less weight.
– First ride: Continental GP 5000 clincher tyre – 500km first impressions
After 500 km of real-world riding, I delivered some first ride impressions based on feel, concluding them to be every bit as good as the tyres they replaced with good grip and low rolling resistance. You can read the full story here.
As their name suggests Aerocoach is an outfit that specialises in aerodynamics, it’s headed by Dr B Xavier Disley. Aerocoach put the new tyre through its paces at the recently opened Boardman Performance Centre. Now, disclaimer time: we weren’t present at the test and we can only report the company’s findings, so take it at face value.


In its test, Aerocoach used the GP 4000 and new GP 5000, along with the GP TT. The tyres were 23mm wide, fitted to a shallow aluminium rim with an internal width of 19.6mm and inflated to 90psi using Vittoria latex inner tubes. The bike used was a Cervelo P2, it only changed the front wheel during the tests.
Aerodyamics
It first conducted an aerodynamic test at 45 kph, a speed chosen because it says it provides “good clean data” from which it can then calculate savings at lower speeds.


At low yaw angles (the direction of the wind is mostly coming from the front) there is not much to choose between the three tyres. Increase the angle of wind up to 5-degrees and the older GP 4000 actually tests better, but as the yaw angle increases past 6 to 7-degrees the GP 5000 provides noticeable lower aerodynamic drag.
– 29 of the best road cycling tyres
What is behind that change? We can only assume it’s due to the new laser printed shoulder tread pattern of the new GP 5000 tyre.

Rolling resistance
Rolling resistance is hugely important in a tyre and Continental says the new GP 5000 offers a 12% improvement over the old GP 4000. Aerocoach tested both tyres on rollers measuring speed and power and recording atmospheric conditions and bike and rider weight to calculate the Coefficient of Rolling Resistance (Crr). A lower Crr is better – in that it requires less power to travel at the same speed.
The GP TT, as you might expect of a tyre designed for time trials, proved best in the test, requiring 7.1 watts less power than the GP 4000s when travelling at 45kph. The newer GP 5000 proved to be 4 watts faster than the GP 4000.
Conclusion

Taking both aerodynamic and rolling resistance tests into account, Aerocoach concluded that the GP TT is the fastest of the three tyres tested, but more importantly, the GP 5000 is, in fact, more aerodynamic and provides lower rolling resistance than the GP 4000 which it replaces, with a 4.3 watt improvement at 45kph. At a more modest, but still fast, 35kph, the difference is still 3.3 watts.
“Given that Continental took so long to bring out an update to the GP4000 we were expecting them to have done their homework. It was interesting to see the profile of the tyre change from the GP 4000 to GP 5000 (the GP 5000 is narrower when installed) but without a hit to rolling resistance, as narrower tyres are generally worse for rolling resistance but better for aerodynamics. Although not as good overall as the GP TT for performance, given the expected better puncture protection it’ll be a good upgrade to a GP 4000,” explains B Xavier Disley, Director or Aerocoach.
So it’s clear, if we’re to believe Aerocoach’s testing, that the new Continental GP 5000 tyre is indeed better in terms of rolling resistance and aerodynamics than the tyre it replaces and backs up the German tyre company’s claimed improvements.
And the new GP 5000 tubeless tyre should be even faster given it’s claimed to offer 5% lower rolling resistance compared to the clincher tyre it’s based on.
























37 thoughts on “New Continental GP 5000 tyre is 4.3 watts faster than outgoing GP 4000 say aero testing specialists”
5% lower Crr would take it
5% lower Crr would take it down to 28.2W total, marginally less than the GP TT.
Regardless, I may well get a pair for my Tri bike and make the current 4000s spares for one of my road bike(s).
I presume these watt savings are for the one front tyre, so you can add on nearly as much again for the rear tyre?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
the front tyre is more important in terms of aerodynamic drag as it’s hitting clean air. obviously the rolling resistance gain will be very similar.
Yet again road.cc is
Yet again road.cc is regurgitating meaningless crap from manufacturers which means absolutely nothing. The watt is not a measurement of speed so nothing can be “X number of watts faster” than something else. Please road.cc, question what you are publishing, dont make yourself look like a publicity machine for the big manufacturers. If you want to promote their meaningless figures have the courage to publish a disclaimer that what you are reproducing is meaningless.
Welsh boy wrote:
Indeed. RoadCC (and other websites or magazines of their ilk) do themselves no favours by regurgitating PR blurb from manufacturers, especially when it’s obvious that this is what it is. If there’s supposedly some sort of independence about the review, it ought to derive it’s own figures for watts-saved or whatever other claim is being made.
The cry will be, “We don’t have the facilities”. If that’s so, they don’t have the competance to do a review that quotes hard data “facts”, then. And frankly, one bloke riding about a bit on something is hardly a “test”.
What should they do, then? Why not just note the fact that a new tyre has come on to the market (please don’t say “unveiled” or “revealed” or “uncovered”) with certain claims from the manufacturer. Leave it to others to do independent tests of a more convincing kind, if RoadCC can’t do them.
I know the website is free to we readers and that it has to be paid for somehow. But finding itself beholden to manufacturers, advertisiers and similar commercial concerns reduces, degrades or even eliminates it’s credibility as a reviewer.
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
I think both of you should take a little time to research subjects before posting aggressively. Just a little google search would have saved you from being so grossly misinformed. You have kind of obtained the wrong end of the stick 🙂
Continental manufacture the GP series of tyres. Did you just buy your first bike last week??
Aerocoach sell some products, but I believe the main thrust of their business is aero testing. If you search up some aerocoach stuff online (and try youtube) you will see aerocoach testing time trial and track riders in the wind tunnel and on tracks. They do exhaustive testing to determine which components are fastest, and crucially, which equipment / components test the quickest for individual riders.
Now I don’t work for Aerocoach and I’ve never had any dealings with them, but I’m a time trial rider so I’ve been hearing about them for years. It’s totally obvious that if they were promoting the GP5000 over other tyres that were better, they would be completely shooting themselves in the foot. They are not the only company doing aero testing, so if they publish garbage they might get found out. TT and track riders go to them for an honest appraisal of what works best for them.
Welsh boy – you really don’t know anything about time trial or track at all do you. Things are indeed measured by being “x number of watts faster”. It’s really a way of indicating that a certain piece of equipment wil save you a certain number of watts, and if something saves you watts it allows you to go a little bit quicker.
Aerocoach business model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Wz2SmWaKY
Continental business model – https://conti-tyres.co.uk/
You’re a pair of twits 🙂
Cugel wrote:
I think both of you should take a little time to research subjects before posting aggressively. Just a little google search would have saved you from being so grossly misinformed. You have kind of obtained the wrong end of the stick 🙂
Continental manufacture the GP series of tyres. Did you just buy your first bike last week??
Aerocoach sell some products, but I believe the main thrust of their business is aero testing. If you search up some aerocoach stuff online (and try youtube) you will see aerocoach testing time trial and track riders in the wind tunnel and on tracks. They do exhaustive testing to determine which components are fastest, and crucially, which equipment / components test the quickest for individual riders.
Now I don’t work for Aerocoach and I’ve never had any dealings with them, but I’m a time trial rider so I’ve been hearing about them for years. It’s totally obvious that if they were promoting the GP5000 over other tyres that were better, they would be completely shooting themselves in the foot. They are not the only company doing aero testing, so if they publish garbage they might get found out. TT and track riders go to them for an honest appraisal of what works best for them.
Welsh boy – you really don’t know anything about time trial or track at all do you. Things are indeed measured by being “x number of watts faster”. It’s really a way of indicating that a certain piece of equipment wil save you a certain number of watts, and if something saves you watts it allows you to go a little bit quicker.
Aerocoach business model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Wz2SmWaKY
Continental business model – https://conti-tyres.co.uk/
You’re a pair of twits 🙂
Welsh boy wrote:
Their quotes from the manufacturer were listed as ‘claims’ and compared against the report from Aerocoach. Also, although Aerocoach might be viewed as a reasonably independent tester, to their credit road.cc also said “Now, disclaimer time: we weren’t present at the test and we can only report the company’s findings, so take it at face value.”
Welsh boy wrote:
The idiom “watts faster” is well defined and well understood. Not every review is going to stop to define the math to you. The term means that at the same speed, the watts needed to propell the bike will be X less. To linear approximation (which is VERY good for such small changes), dv/dP will be reasonably constant over a range of small changes in v (speed)or P (power), and so it makes very little difference if you measure change in wattage at the same speed or change in speed at the same wattage. This argument fails as changes becomes large, but works very well for relatively small changes. In reality then what that means is that at your same TT wattage output that would get you 35kph on the old tire, you’ll go faster on the new tire by an amount equivilant to how fast you’d go on the old tire with X watts more. Now do you expect every reviewer to write all that EVERY time, when to most of the world it’s actually fairly obvious? Is that their fault for poor writing or your fault for poorly keeping up with your understanding of the topic?
As for the data, yes it’s from a third party. They say that quite clearly and the HUGE logos on the plots make it pretty clear.
I remember flicking through
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….
Chris Hayes wrote:
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:
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:
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.
A few points:
A few points:
Why didn’t they test the new
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
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
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:
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.— BehindTheBikesheds
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:
Duplicate post.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
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:
Blimey you are an angry person. In response to the aero question, I wrote this in the article, which actually points out that the 4000 does provide lower drag at some yaw angles:
At low yaw angles there is not much to choose between the three tyres. Increase the angle of wind up to 5-degrees and the older GP 4000 actually tests better, but as the yaw angle increases past 6 to 7-degrees the GP 5000 provides noticeable lower aerodynamic drag.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
2500 posts and this angry drivel. You need to get out more!
4.3w at 28mph is utterly
4.3w at 28mph is utterly meaningless to Joe Public.
Take that 4,3w saving and use it up at 28mph…..you will go .07mph faster. Not 0.7….0.07
BIG WIN!
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
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:
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?
BTBS wrote:
1. 23mm tyre
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.
Anyone running pressures above 70PSI (especially tubeless) likewise needs their head reading (and possibly to visit a sports therapist to deal with the needless battering you’re giving your arse/wrists).
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.
All that said, good on Conti for getting on the tubeless bus, and for a crack at fact-lead ‘marketing’. 5/10, could do better.
* other countries are available
KiwiMike wrote:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
4.3w at 28mph is utterly meaningless to Joe Public.
Well, figure that whatever your speed 4 w is approx 8 sec faster over 10 miles. But if you do the “slightly faster upgrade” idea across:
body position
tires
clothing
helmet
chain
race number
etc etc etc
It all adds up. I’m off now.
Don’t see the point of the angry rant. And hours on forums…
(Hi Dave Atkinson)
Get out ride your bike, buy the quipment you like…
Hope you’ll be fast enough to be “happy”.
(I am for the record)
I thought it was pretty
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.
Paul__M wrote:
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 🙂
Oh Dave, what makes you think
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.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Because you are?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
How can you tell, especially as you’re wearing a helmet which we know deadens your capacity to think?
BehindTheBikesheds]
How can you tell, especially as you’re wearing a helmet which we know deadens your capacity to think?
[/quote
Case in point.