Never seen one like this before!

[tv_vt]

Flying Gate? Huh?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/FLYING-GATE...IAAOSwoyRbo-GV

[Louis]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

[tctyres]

I've seen some pretty old ones. I think they were first built in the 1930s or earlier.

[cribbit]

The unpainted chainstay really ups this one.

IMO they shouldn't have put the seat tube in there, would've been cooler. Wonder if you could get away with the middle chainstays going away.

[rustychisel]

look up Bain or Bates Flying Gate. English. Intended to give more rigid frame and tighter clearances for rear wheel, tucking it in under the [shortened] seat tube.

an evolutionary backwater.

[fiamme red]

https://www.brooksengland.com/en_us/...tish-icon.html

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/baines.html

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk...baines-hs.html

"The ‘Flying Gate’ frame design allows for a very short rear triangle which many riders find very responsive."

[bikingshearer]

I've seen photos of 'em, never seen one in person. As mentioned, it seems that the point is to make a chainstay that is a good bit shorter than otherwise possible.

Their kind of fun to look at, but I would not want to ride one on anything that might even be mistaken for a hill. As it is, I have to watch out on hills not to pop a wheelie on a regularly-built short chainstay frame (I'm 6'3" and like to slide my butt back when I do my incredibly slow climbing). The extra stay and wheelbase shortness would have doing an inadvertent Peter Sagan every third pedal stroke on anything over 2 or 3%.