That's why I think a giant company like Kinlin should just draw the thing (only difference if the alloy "rod" shape), and put it in it's line. Their manufacturing cost must be very low compared to the other manufacturers. Easy to see when you look at them closely. I don't really care, as they're cheap, and very reliable, they're doing their job very well ( I have all of the Kinlin models except the XR380).
I wouldn't want to see wider rims for tubulars that allow them to "sit deeper". That would detract from the qualities that make tubulars so nice to ride. The completely round shape, unhindered by "sidewalls". All you need for the tubular is a section that allows it to be glued safely, then let the tubular move around with the demands of the ride. Sitting it deep into a rim would in effect change a tubulars handling characteristics to be more like that of a clincher, which no one who has ridden tubulars wants. On the other hand, wider rim profiles for clinchers allow the clincher to spread out more, allowing them to behave a little bit more like a tubular which is good for clincher riders.
I see your point, but my opinion is the traditionnal tubular alloy rim market is living in the past, opposed to the modern carbon rim market that adjusted to the new "demands", namely "aero-ness" and "lightness".
While I agree with you on the better ride characteristics that the new rim-tire combo brought to the clincher type wheels, I still think the alloy rims could copy what the newer carbon tubular rims are approaching these days. Not necessarely to change the ride characteristics of the tubulars, but to have better aerodynamics with the tubular-rim combo. Of course, I wouldn't want to have an incrusted tubular inside the channel. But I'm shure some little changes to the shape of the channel, maybe an angled brake surface (
) combined with a rounder profile of a Kinlkin TB25, strectched to 27-28mmm would shure accomplish my wishes
. A little fiddling with wall thicknesses, and Voilà ...!!!