It seems that modern clinchers are pretty good - for non-race/everyday summer wheels what would be the difference between Bora tubulars and Bora clinchers? Weight is less for tubulars but it's easier to sort out a puncture with clinchers. Personally I'd like to step into carbon rims for less weight than alloy and possibly better stiffness & a bit of aero too(and to be honest, a bit of bling!).
Is it as night and day as saying that unless you get Bora One tubulars you might as well get a good alloy clincher like Shamal? Any thoughts? What benefits would you see between Shamal clinchers / Bora clinchers / Bora tubulars? Just curious...
My Tune hubbed H+Son Archetypes weigh 1422g, so 50g or so lighter than Bora one clinchers and just as stiff with the benefits of an alloy braking surface and lower cost. The Boras will gain a little in aero and sure do look nice though.
The tubular Bora ones however knock 200g off (250g lighter than the clinchers) and keep the aero advantages. If you choose to add sealant you shouldn't have to worry about punctures either (although I get less on tubulars anyway for some reason). The tyres do cost more and take a little more time/care to fit, but the wheels are much cheaper so that helps balance it out for a while at least.
If comparing Bora clinchers to Shamals, there is little if any stiffness difference, and I feel the shamal (if anything) is stiffer. I've not ridden either in the wet, but braking is excellent on both in the dry. It comes down to aero/looks really.