In order for there to be any significant dampening effect, the chainstay would have to flex perpendicular to its axis in concert with any flex in the seatstay along its axis. I doubt there is any real difference with this arrangement over a standard straight seatstay, especially since there is no mechanical hinging built into the chainstays, as there is on a suspension bike. Like the Hetchins, any difference is probably cosmetic. The biggest impact on shock absorption is tire size and pressure. It sure is pretty, though.
Steve Barner, Bolton, Vermont
----- Original Message ----- >
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:54:49 -0400
> From: "Jeremy Lieberman" <jeremylieberman@nyc.rr.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Subject: [CR]The Modern Hetchins?
>
> http://www.kirkframeworks.com/
>
---SNIP---
>
> It seems as if Kirk has done the reverse of Hetchins, seeking to gain =
> added suspension effect not from the chainstays- as was Hetchins =
> specialty (though I understand that Hetchins did put some slight bend in =
> his seatstays), but instead from the seatstays. It could be that Kirk =
> has created a more effective design than Hetchins, in that (as some have =
> remarked) the seat stays play a larger role in suspending a bike in the =
> vertical plane than chainstays do- and therefore will contribute a =
> larger movement up and down than chainstays will.
>
---SNIP
>
> for a given riders weight and road use. I wonder if from a Physics =
> perspective, his long S bend seatstays could be as well done using =
> instead only one long sweeping C bend? Comments? Thanks,
> Jeremy Lieberman
> New York City