Talk:Toothed belt

A clear photo of a toothed belt drive, with the belt teeth or possibly the pulley too visible is needed for the masthead. Can't find one at Commons yet. User:Andy Dingley:Andy Dingley talk12:38, 24 April 2013‎ (UTC)


 * It would be useful to add the profile pictures of the various early and modern tooth profiles that have different characteristics and are not interchangeable. The Metric and imperial types are also not compatible with each other.


 * Idyllic press (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Name
This should be called "Timing Belt"

Toothed belt is colloquial use or some generic term.

The disambiguation page needs to give Timing Belt the prominence it deserves as the primary umbrella term that should link to this (or similar page).

Idyllic press (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We already have an article on Timing belt (camshaft). Is your issue here that the articles should be merged (as these belts are only used for camshafts)? Or that "Timing" is a better name than "Toothed"? I would possibly agree the second in principle, except that the two names are already very close together and two matching primary names would become very confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Idyllic press. Although one would think that the more general name is "toothed belt", it is commonly known as "timing belt". See for example McMaster-Carr catalog. Note that they show two types of thing under "toothed belt". One is the type of belt discussed here, in which the teeth on the belt engage with teeth in the pulleys to keep the pulleys in sync. The other type of belt is V-belt with teeth, but those teeth are really just notches to allow the V-shaped belt to be more flexible -- it is used with non-toothed V-groove pulleys. Gwideman (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For "V belt with teeth", look under serpentine belt (for the flat belts with crosswise teeth). Longitudinal grooved belts are at polygroove belt and the older relieved vee belts are at vee belts. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of common "timing belt" size standards
Sure would be great if someone would fill in common standard sizes for timing belts, with some explanation of key features. Such as MXL, XL, GT2 and so on. Gwideman (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Pulleys vs. Sprockets
From the article:


 * It runs over matching toothed pulleys or sprockets.

The only correct term for the device with which a synchronous (timing) belt is engaged is pulley. In power transmission engineering, a sprocket refers to the device that engages a chain, not a belt. Also note that the proper term for the device that engages a V-belt is sheave. As this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, it's important to use proper terms, not ones randomly tracked down on-line to suit one's beliefs or prejudices. The cited references using the term sprocket to describe what is a pulley are all incorrect, despite their apparent authority. -38.69.12.6 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could provide a reference of higher authority, since that is the only way to make the change. Simply asserting something as true, despite what the references say, is useless here. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not make drastic changes to the article until other editors have a change to examine the sources you provide and come to a consensus about how to proceed. You can post them below in reply to my comments. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A sprocket is applied to the drive of either chains or belts, so long as there is positive drive by teeth (as there is for a synchronous belt, as here). Here's Gates using "pulley" and "sprocket" interchangeably: . Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
Request received to merge articles: Gilmer belt into Toothed belt; dated: {July 2016}. Proposer's Rationale: Synonymous trade name. Discuss here. Jergling (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just reworked Gilmer belt and found that it's actually just a trade name/nickname for "toothed belt". Most instances of people calling it by the trade name are from the early days of belt design when there was something unique about a trapezoidal profile, toothed rubber belt. As it stands, a few hobbyist groups still refer to it as a "Gilmer belt" as evidenced by the unsourced edits from 2013, but that doesn't warrant a unique article. I propose a merger into toothed belt, as some of the references from Gilmer are kind of interesting and could contribute to a history section. Jergling (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support. We would have a better article if these were covered in one place. However the rather obvious disruptive **** of an editor will launch off on another series of attacks against me, so I rather doubt if this is achievable within the WP editing model.
 * "Gilmer" is a genericised tradename for such belts. However they have been obsolete for decades and unobtainable for nearly as long - such that people running high-torque Gilmer drives are having to change the pulleys to swap belts, as they can no longer obtain Gilmer profile belts.
 * The Gilmer belt was badly designed from the outset, as it ignores the work done around 1900 for the Renolds silent chain and instead went with a trapezoidal profile. This was a stupid idea (and typically American for the period, thrusting forward and ignoring both obvious design factors and years of experience elsewhere. Still, a nation of teenagers, what can you do?). Eventually the massive wear rate for Gilmer belts and their habit of tooth-jumping became just too obvious. The idea of the interference engine came about when Jimmy Bob and Billy Bob found their GM engine popping teeth and smashing valves - something which just didn't happen in Europe. The parabolic tooth profile was in use in Europe through the 1960s, just in time for the Americans to ditch the Gilmer in 1969 when Uniroyal standardised the simplistically rounded HTD design (a tooth profile thought out by removing the obvious failings of the Gilmer, but still not stopping and just thinking about the things). By the 1980s a bunch of parabolic profiles, which are actually the shape they ought to be, were standardised (standards are great, everyone should have one). If anyone ever sees sense we'll just switch to using RPP throughout. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)