From the wheels I have seen, it appears that carbon clinchers are not significantly lighter than the lightest regular clincher wheels. Even the lightest carbon clincher wheels are in the 1,400 to 1,500 gram range. There are plenty of regular clinchers between 1,450 and 1,550, yet carbon clinchers are so much more expensive. Is there something I am missing? Is there some great ride ability for carbon clinchers that I am missing?

No, there is not. Carbon clinchers are pretty useless. If you want carbon, go with tubes.

the advantages of carbon clinchers are that they are more aero, but a lot heavier

carbon clinchers: aero, 1700 grams (404's)
carbon tubulars: aero, light 1300 grams (404s)
alu clinchers: not aero, light (1300 grams) and heavy (2000+ grams)
alu tubulars: not aero, somewhat light (1400 grams)

Most high end wheelsets (K's, Easton, D/A) are close to 1,500 grams.

The Bontrager carbon clinchers are 1,350 grams. 150 grams is a pretty decent weight savings. Is it worth $1,000 extra? Well, probably not to most. As with anything, at that level, you have reached a point of diminishing return.

The others are correct. Tubs will get you the most performace for your dollar.

Most high end wheelsets (K's, Easton, D/A) are close to 1,500 grams.

The Bontrager carbon clinchers are 1,350 grams. 150 grams is a pretty decent weight savings. Is it worth $1,000 extra? Well, probably not to most. As with anything, at that level, you have reached a point of diminishing return.

The others are correct. Tubs will get you the most performance for your dollar.

Most high end wheelsets (K's, Easton, D/A) are close to 1,500 grams.

The Bontrager carbon clinchers are 1,350 grams. 150 grams is a pretty decent weight savings. Is it worth $1,000 extra? Well, probably not to most. As with anything, at that level, you have reached a point of diminishing return.

The others are correct. Tubs will get you the most performace for your dollar.

yeah... i forgot about the bonti's, but they are low profile, right? so no aero adv. also the reynolds full carbon clinchers are around 1450-1500 grams for a 46 profile rim...

if you are going to buy carbon clinchers, get the mavic cosmic carbons... most durable, cheaper than zipps, and as aero, if not more aero than 404's

so yeah.. my list revised:

alu rim/carbon clinchers: aero, heavy (relativly)
full carbon low profile clinchers: not aero, somewhat light
full carbon tubulars: aero, light
full carbon high profile clinchers: aero, heavy(relative)
...so on

I think the idea behind the carbon clincher is the ease of repair at the side of the road with aero benefits. You have to remember alot of roadies don't have a support car driving behind them to slap on a new wheel in seconds when you flat. If your the average roadie that wants an aero advantage without the pain of a tube repair then a carbon clincher is the way to go. As for the price...you'll see alot more clinchers coming into the market in the next couple of years all competing for your dollar....they will become more affordable.

I also don't think the rim with be damaged when you flat on a clincher...unless you ride 10km on it. If I get a flat I pull over, fix her up and off I go-no riding on rims (aluminum included)!!! Do you don't think you won't damage and aluminum rim if you flat and keep riding?

just my .02 :)

The others are correct. Tubs will get you the most performance for your dollar.
Given what is being learned about the higher rolling resistance of tubulars compared to clinchers, this conclusion is highly suspect for rims of similar profile.

Given what is being learned about the higher rolling resistance of tubulars compared to clinchers, this conclusion is highly suspect for rims of similar profile.

Higher rolling resistance? I have not heard that before. Granted, I don't pay much attention to tubs. But, I was mostly thinking of weight. A tubular is generally lighter than than a clincher and tube. And a tubular wheel is generally lighter than a clincher wheel.

Higher rolling resistance? I have not heard that before.
Here, for one. There are lots more threads like it. http://biketechreview.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=894&highlight=tubular+clincher+rolling

Here, for one. There are lots more threads like it. http://biketechreview.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=894&highlight=tubular+clincher+rolling
Is there any test that use realistic test conditions? I rarely worry about rolling resistance on the roller.

Is there any test that use realistic test conditions? I rarely worry about rolling resistance on the roller.
Do your own search. First, this argument has been beaten to death and shown to have no validity when comparing the relative performance of tires. Second there are numerous tests done on the road with powermeters showing the same result for tubular rolling resistance compared to clinchers. Now, of course, you may object that these road tests weren't done on the exact roads you'll be racing on, and even then, by next season the roads will have either weathered or been repaved so the results won't be meaningful either.

Do your own search. First, this argument has been beaten to death and shown to have no validity when comparing the relative performance of tires. Second there are numerous tests done on the road with powermeters showing the same result for tubular rolling resistance compared to clinchers. Now, of course, you may object that these road tests weren't done on the exact roads you'll be racing on, and even then, by next season the roads will have either weathered or been repaved so the results won't be meaningful either.
Well, F*ck me gently with a chainsaw for asking a question.