Re: [CR] Flying Gate

(Example: Racing:Roger de Vlaeminck)

From: "Arthur Knowler" <arthur@aknowler.co.uk>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <mailman.9850.1258435746.72377.classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:28:15 +0000
Thread-Index: AcpnRvgG46rlSWMmSCKHlGkmfpUNqABTQEcA
In-Reply-To:
Subject: Re: [CR] Flying Gate


Hi listmembers,

First let me admit to some partisanship. Trevor Jarvis is a friend of mine and I have two "modern" Flying Gates.

The chainstays on mine are about one and a half inches shorter than on comparable standard frames in my collection. The original Baines were called Whirlwind 37, a tip to their short wheelbase 37" instead of 40" or so. Claims are often made for the shorter wheelbase offering better climbing but in practice I'm not sure at all. It does make a very whippy track iron and that's a difference I really notice on the track (path???) and road.

The real reason for having one though has to be bragging rights for such a cool and different frame. Both of mine turn heads regularly, and not just among cyclists. My fixed wheel bike has very fancy handmade lugs which are something that just about only Trevor does in the UK now - he builds them up from sheet steel blanks - they're not bi-laminated. Everyone else I know of is limited to more or less stock lug designs.

Back in the day I'm sure the Baines brothers proposed the design for very similar reasons that Horace Bates and Solly Hetchins did theirs at around the same time - product visibility, but isn't this kind of difference the reason some of us collect bikes in the first place?

Arthur Knowler Southend on sea Essex

------------------------------

Message: 8 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:57 -0800 From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [CR] [Baines] Flying Gate To: <crumpy6204@aol.com>, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, <hsachs@alumni.rice.edu> Message-ID: <249379.21166.qm@web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Well, I must like funk points, as i have a genuine Baines Whirlwind TT. Evidently refinished, the paint and decals are much too good to be original. Bought the frameset a few years ago, but haven't built it up. Maybe I'll move it to the head of the list.

Regards,

Jerry Moos


--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Harvey Sachs wrote:


> From: Harvey Sachs <hmsachs@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [CR] [Baines] Flying Gate
> To: crumpy6204@aol.com, "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 8:15 PM
> Well, John,
> Let me assure you that I don't have one, and won't have
> one. I'm not necessarily opposed to ornament (I do, for
> example, have a Hetchins), but to me the Flying Gate is a
> triumph of patient labor over common sense or sound
> engineering. It "allows" one to make and finish seven more
> brazed joints than a conventional design needs, and every
> one of those takes time and costs money. If you just enlarge
> the first picture, and lay a piece of paper parallel to the
> stub seat tube, the flying gate design hasn't moved the seat
> more than an inch forward of the normal position (the edge
> of the paper as straight edge intersects the down tube just
> barely forward of the BB). And using the same trick, there's
> a couple of inches between where the front edge of the rear
> tire would intersect the back of the extended seat tube if
> it were extended.
>
> My guess is that this, like the "curly" stay Hetchins and
> the "Cantiflex" with "diadrant" (?) recurved forks was an
> effort to do almost anything to make your brand identifiable
> in races where no brand markings were allowed. Or did the
> makers actually believe their hype?
>
> BTW, one list member has an Andy Hamel with similar layout,
> but fully lugless.
>
> But, it gets lots of Funk points, something I've always
> cherished.
>
> harvey sachs, feeling downright curmudgeonly
> mcLean va.
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> John Crump wrote:
> Item#300364710017 Baines Flying gate. Looking at the photo
> and having NEVER ridden one. What was gained by the design?
> the fork rake on this older one would negate I would think
> any advantage of the frame design.The point of the saddle
> must be way behind the bottom bracket.with the long top tube
> and sitting so far back.steering the bloody thing must have
> been a chore. OR am I wrong as usual? lets hear from you CR
> members who have one, Maybe Dave Moulton could comment on
> this, I understand the reason for the design was to shorten
> the wheelbase? would this be an advantage in climbing?
> Cheers John Crump OldandstretchedoutenoughBrit, Parker. Co
> USA