Tom,
I think you misunderstand the economics of a disc wheel. A tubular disc is very expensive as we have to essentially make a superlight carbon rim and then construct that into a disc. With the clincher disc we have to do the same thing with an aluminum clincher rim which is cheaper than a carbon rim, but then it has to be constructed into a disc as well, so the costs really aren't all that different. The development costs aren't really that different either as you are assuming that the tubular development was fast and easy, it wasn't. Since the cost of the development of the dimpled composite process is attached to the tubular disc, the clincher disc could use considerable resources and wind tunnel time in development before getting close to the cost of the tubular disc development. All in all it took us some 2 years to develop and refine this clincher disc concept into something that worked as well as it does, but then again it took us nearly 3 years to determine the most effective dimple pattern, dimple shape, dimple depth, etc.. then determine how to actually do the dimpled composite molding, and lastly how to construct the tooling since nobody had ever done it before, plus we filed patents for all of this which is very expensive.
The thing I don't see here is how or why anybody would think I have some vested interest in selling tubulars to everybody...we sell clinchers and tubulars for the same price because the manufactured costs are very similar (tubies have more carbon in them, so more labor in the layup process as well as more expensive materials, the clinchers use less carbon but the aluminum hoop does have to be completely prepped for bonding and post machined, both processes which add considerable labor cost so it is really a wash), so a wheelset is a wheelset as far as that goes, I'm just here relating some things I've seen and experienced in this business that may help some folks out instead of just confusing them with marketing gobledygook that some sales guy came up with.
The theory on why a tubular has less RR than a clincher on rougher pavement from what I have discussed with this tire manufacturer is that the tubular carcass can better distribute the displacement of a small impact over a larger portion of tire carcass with less localized deformation and lower localized shear forces in the tire tread or casing. I really can't print or publish data that isn't mine, the test I saw was done by a very major tire manufacturer and I was fortunate enough to be involved, but that surely won't happen again if I go around publishing data I didn't pay for on the internet. The real point is probably that the test I took part in utilized a rough surface and the Tour test utilized a machined drum, these are totally different tests with very different outcomes...
As for Basso on Alpe d'Huez, I was actually there that day with the team and we had actually calculated that Z3's would be fastest due to the weight/aero balance of that wheelset, but a difference in scale calibration left Basso's bike too light with Z3's when the UCI weighed it and with only a few minutes to his start time the easiest way to add weight was to change the wheelset. That bike already had some 340 grams of chain dropped down the seat tube as ballast, and the bike did weigh 6.8 kilos according to the CSC scale, but not the UCI, so the wheel choice had nothing to do with anything other than meeting the 6.8k limit.
cheers
http://www.SILCA.cc Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc