Re: [CR]Wired-on vs. clincher


Example: Framebuilders:Mario Confente

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:00:26 -0400
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
From: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Wired-on vs. clincher
In-Reply-To: <00a401c7ccde$305ee580$0300a8c0@D8XCLL51>
References: <BAY141-F25D45274B9B1437E52A01DBFF60@phx.gbl> <3.0.6.32.20070722163144.01332260@mailhost.oxford.net>


At 09:01 PM 22/07/2007 -0700, ternst wrote:
>Well, I guess I should put my two cts. worth in.
>The word clincher is tricky.

Thanks for the details, Ted. I knew there was a difference, but it's hard to find the history. Kurt Sperry already emailed me privately questioning my annoyance with the lack of distinction in today's usage, and I guess he's right because I also call them "clinchers". In fact, other than among vintage cyclists, tubular tires today are almost unknown. Do most racers still use them? Today's "clinchers", however, can't even always be called "wired-on" because of all the different types, many if which don't even use wire.

John Betmanis
Woodstock, Ontario
Canada