1992 Trevor Jarvis Flying Gate

 

 

The history of the Flying Gate frame goes back to the Baines Brothers from Yorkshire in the 1930s. They came up with a frame design which shortened the bicycle wheelbase, but did not have the more usual problem of toe overlap on the pedals/cranks. This was because the more accepted practice to shorten the wheelbase, was to shorten the fork rake and steepen the frame head angle which did indeed shorten the bicycle wheelbase, but created toe overlap. Why do I say more usual practice? Well track bikes for racing on a banked track were built this way, where large steering movements were unlikely to happen and be affected by toe overlap. By steepening the frame head angle, also made the bike much more responsive. Fine on a relatively smooth cycle track, but not great on unmetalled or rough road surfaces. 

 

 

Another advantage of the Baines Brothers unique frame design was that the National Cyclists’ Union, which regulated cycle racing in the UK in the 1930s had a very strict amateur policy. No advertising, no sponsorship, and riding grass track events, which were largely part of local community events and therefore unregulated by the NCU, offered prizes of goods or cash, which if the NCU found out would have the rider declared a ‘Professional’, i.e. riding for financial reward and lose their amateur status. The majority of riders rode these events under false names, as the events were reported on in the press. This ban on advertising even extended to coverage in the cycling press. H H England who was the editor of the ‘Cycling’ magazine at the time, was an ardent supporter of this policy, so even photographs published of riders competing in events, did not easily show the make of bicycle they were riding. 

 

 

By developing a unique frame design, the ban was circumvented, because everyone could easily see what the machine was. It also stimulated demand for these machines from other cyclists who wanted to ride what the top time triallists of the day were riding. The British Best All Rounder competition was started by ‘Cycling’ in the early 1930s, in which riders had to try and get the fastest times in open time trials over various distances. ‘Cycling’ magazine got competition from a new publication in the late 1930s, ‘The Bicycle’, which also featured coverage of continental road racing, massed start road racing being very much frowned upon by H H England and the NCU. This difference of opinion was ultimately to lead to the formation of the ‘break away’ BLRC and mass start road races promoted by Percy Stallard, a situation not resolved until the two organizations merged to form the British Cycling Federation, now British Cycling.

 

 

The Baines Brothers eventually went out of business and Flying Gate frames stopped being made. In 1979, engineer, Trevor Jarvis bought the rights to manufacture Flying Gate frames from Baines Brothers and started to build the Flying Gate frames again. Trevor initially built the frames in Burton on Trent, but later moved to Tenbury Wells. Each frame Trevor built is unique, as the frame lugs are all hand cut, each set differing slightly. Trevor trained others, Firstly Jeremy Cartwright and then Liz Colebrook, with a view to have them take the business forward, but due to circumstances beyond his control, his plans to retire were frustrated. I understand that position is now changing. I know that Trevor regarded Liz Colebrook very highly and she built some very nice Flying Gate frames. Liz built a pair of forks for me for another bike and she is a very good framebuilder and skilled artisan.

 

 

The Flying Gate in the Springhill Cycle Collection was purchased from the estate of the original owner over 15 years ago. It was returned to Trevor for some minor work and re-enamelled. The parts fitted are largely what came on the bike, but the handlebars, stem and saddle were changed from the 1950s components to more contemporary components to the age of the frame. The original wheels had Argentinian Savedra hubs (Campagnolo copies) laced into Wolber Model 58 rims. The rear axle is bent and there is a lot of wear to the cones. As the thread is unique, (a bit like Zeus), standard Campagnolo cones will not fit and are not deep enough if they did fit. I will have to get new cones made and use a 10mm x 1 metric cro-mo rear axle to cut the costs down. It is my intention to eventually refit the original wheels to the bike, once the problem is sorted. The current wheels were built by me, using 1990s threaded hubs, stainless steel spokes and Chrina rims. It is a lovely bike to ride and a fantastic addition to the collection.

 

 

Original parts

Shimano 105 headset

Shimano 105 rear derailleur

Shimano 105 front derailleur with fixing bracket

Shimano 105 brake callipers

Shimano ‘Golden Arrow’ downtube levers

Stronglight 100LX chainset 48/34T

Sachs-Maillard 7 spd block 12 – 28T (12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 28T)

Sachs chain

SR pedals/red resin toeclips

Black/Orange mudguards

Gearing in inches

	34	38	48
12	74.9	83.9	105.8
14	64.3	71.7	90.7
16	56.4	62.9	79.4
18	50	55.8	70.6
20	45	50.3	63.5
23	39.2	43.6	55.3
28	30	35.9	45.2

Cleaning alloy cycle components

I was doing some internet searching in relation to a bike I had to work on for the Springhill Cycle Collection. The bike, an early 1970s model, had been stored in less than ideal conditions and the alloy components were showing signs of surface corrosion - not been cleaned before it was stored. The components were a Spanish copy of Campagnolo and in parody of the great Roman cycling god, the copies were named after the ruler of the Greek Olympian gods, Zeus. Frank Berto in his tome 'The Dancing Chain' doesn't rate Zeus components. Zeus components were never very common in this part of 'the oul sod', so to get a bike equipped with Zeus is unusual. The bike is local, has been ridden and used judging by the layers of dirt and wear to the parts. Anyway to return to the point, the large flange hubs are not Zeus and turned out to be of Japanese origin. I haven't seen photos of this particular model of hub on the web.

However, here at Methuselah Towers I have a confession to make. I haven't bought a news stand cycle magazine in 10 years and don't frequent internet forums, so therefore cannot claim any kind of expertise other than experience. So I have to defer to the 'experts' on the web, who advocate using various grades of abrasive papers and buffing wheels to polish alloy components. Personally I would have grave reservations about such an aggressive approach, as I have experience of alloy components such as Campagnolo and Stronglight cracking and failing. I also don't agree with re-polishing old alloy to a very high surface shine, far removed from the original finish. To me it detracts from the originality of the parts/machine and can, in my humble opinion, be a case of 'over egging the pudding'.

I prefer a more subtle approach, one advocated by a long forgotten source. I was told to use a brass brush to clean alloy and then wipe the surface with oil. I now prefer to use WD40 or an equivalent solvent, on a soft cloth or a bit of kitchen roll, to wipe the burnished alloy. The brush will get rid of the surface bloom and expose the nature and extent of any surface pitting and corrosion. A decision can then be made about re-polishing if deemed necessary. It is surprising how much the brass brush will clean up the alloy, whilst still leaving a sympathetic finish to the metal. Where the corrosion is not too deep it can be polished out after cleaning, using Autosol and a soft cloth. A final clean with a silicone based car polish will give it the final seal as you have in all likelihood removed the original anodised finish. I have tried to show a few before and after photos to illustrate the point. The Maillard small flange hubs are ones I rescued from the scrap bin of a cycle business. 

Remember that you will need to keep an eye on your repolished alloy as it will now be more susceptible to corrosion as the anodised coating has been removed!