Got one, rode with Trevor 30 yrs ago, he and the bikes are one off broke the mould! A joy to own, ride and look at, like functional art.

How wonderful it is that he had the foresight to bring in new blood to ensure the continuation of these uniquely laid out frames. I had never heard of these frames before, so thank you for improving my knowledge and understanding of these frames.

cost an arm and a leg..but custom built just for you.built how you want it.wow!love this channel good job.

What a lovely man.

such craftmanship wow!

his hands alone tell the whole story

I have an early Trevor Jarvis "Flying Gate"; it shares a garage with about a dozen other handmade bikes from Hetchin's, Galmozzi and the like. The "'Gate" is stiff and light, and very pleasant to ride. Even here in bike-jaded San Francisco, it turns heads, and people who are actually knowledgeable about the history of cycling and about British handmade frames, are always excited to see it on the road. I had never seen Mr. Jarvis (I bought the bike from the original owner, near Bristol), so it was a delight to "meet" him here, and to know whose hands created my lovely frame.

is it compatible with shimano DI2 disc?

Rather strange looking.

It's called the flying gate because it must weight the same as an actual gate

@roberthaines6861

3 жыл бұрын

I have one. The frame is actually slightly lighter than the frame of my Hetchin's.

Ridiculous frame with too many redundant struts. If the vertical down tube was bent so that it met the seat tube, then you could keep the short wheel base and lose 2 rear stays and the short section of seat tube.

@kc3718

4 жыл бұрын

but no one came up with that design until Cervelo made the P3 Aluminium a whopping 70 years later ! No one calls Ironbridge ridiculous because it doesn't have the properties of a modern monstrosity...

@roberthaines6861

3 жыл бұрын

No, it's not at all "ridiculous", @Lewis72. If the vertical tube was bent so that it met the seat tube, it would introduce two new problems: (1) it would stress the Reynolds tubing beyond what it could take without weakening, and (2) it would lose the stiffness imparted by the double rear triangle. The secret of the bike's stiffness is that double-triangle, made with straight tubing. There's a reason why Flying Gates were so successful in competition against conventional frames, back in the late-'30s. They stopped being made in the '50s, not because they were inferior to conventional, double-triangle frames, but primarily because they took a lot more work to fit and braze the frames together. That put them at an economic disadvantage. And pro-tip: they're not "struts"; they're "stays".

@lewis72

3 жыл бұрын

@@roberthaines6861 1) How do you know what the strain-to-failure is of that material ? The forks are bent in a similar way with obviously no strength issues. 2) The stiffness of a single rear-triangle frame could be increased to that of the Gate by increasing the diameter of the stay and/or the wall thickness, so that the tension/compression stiffness could be tuned along with the bending stiffness. You get much more out-of-plane bending stiffness per unit mass by increasing the tube diameter than by doubling up small-diameter tubes. It would certainly be a more mass-efficient design. Would need test/CAE to really understand the structural performance though. I am well aware of the names of all of the frame components. Not wanting to limit my statement of the redundant members being the "stays" (i.e. chain stays or rear stays) or "tubes" (i.e. seat tube, down tube) I called them collectively "struts", where a strut is _"a rod or bar forming part of a framework and designed to resist compression"_

@roberthaines6861

3 жыл бұрын

@@lewis72 -- the forks most certainly are *not* "bent in a similar way" to a seat tube. The walls of fork tubes where the rake begins were typically more than 1mm thick and maybe 15mm in diameter, whereas the main tubes, when double-butted, had _half_ of that wall thickness, whilst being around 1" diameter. Fork tubes are cold-set, and at a 6" radius bend, there is still typically a small amount of rippling on the inner faces and stretching on the outer faces, both of which somewhat weaken the tubes by introducing stress risers. Try cold-setting a typical heat-treated, 1" diameter, .5mm seat-tube, at a 6" radius. Go ahead -- I'll wait. No -- neither you, nor anyone else, can do so without the tube failing. Where you *do* see curved main tubes nowadays, the tubes are bent _before_ heat-treating, and usually employing specific radius dies in bending machines. But these were very uncommon on handmade, lightweight bicycle frames before the 1970s when they started appearing on time-trial bikes. Can you name a single example of a hand-built lightweight frame from the 1930s that used bent main tubes? I can't. _Every_ example of a frame that sought to shorten the wheelbase (Saxon, Paris Galibier, Sun Manx, et al) did just what Baines did: they used _straight_ main tubes. You wrote "The stiffness of a single rear-triangle frame could be increased to that of the Gate by increasing the diameter of the stay and/or the wall thickness, so that the tension/compression stiffness could be tuned along with the bending stiffness. You get much more out-of-plane bending stiffness per unit mass by increasing the tube diameter than by doubling up small-diameter tubes." Well, I suggest you build a time machine and travel back to 1936, to tell Reynolds that they should be making larger-diameter, non-heat-treated tubing, so that frame-builders can benefit from materials that were not available to them at the time. And then find a way to supply all frame-builders with a forge so they can do their own heat-treating. Because otherwise you seem to be criticizing a design for not being 40 years ahead of its time, and that's just silly. Why wasn't Baines building with carbon fiber? How archaic of them to be using lugged steel! 🙄

@lewis72

3 жыл бұрын

@@roberthaines6861 "the main tubes, when double-butted, had half of that wall thickness, whilst being around 1" diameter" - Strain to failure seems to be around 10%, so it would be possible. Curved tubes are rarely seen nowadays probably as there's no requirement for them; adding cost and process where it's not needed but if you can shorten the wheelbase and do away with the T lug and the additional tubes & welding, then there _is_ a case for it. Reynolds would have made tubes in a variety of diameters. You can see from the Flying Gate that the two rear stay pairs are non-uniform sections and differ from one another. [ Edit: Claud Butler did exactly what I was trying to describe in their 1947 Tandem ] classiccycleus.com/home/claud-butler-tandem/ There's also this design, which I was thinking of too but Claud Butler beat me to it by at least 65 years. www.classiclightweights.co.uk/readers_bikes/claud-butler-saxon-1956/