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)

Indeed, the most common name for the general concept seems to be "timing belt", not "toothed belt". Since the specialized timing belt for cars already has the qualifier Timing belt (camshaft), I propose to (1) rename the current [[Timing belt]] to [[Timing belt (disambiguation)]], and (2) rename this article to [[Timing belt]], with a hat-note "For the car part, see [[Timing belt (camshaft)]]".
Readers who type "timing belt" expecting the car concept will have to click one more step, as they do now. Readers who are looking for the general concept will be immediately satisfied, instead of having to go through the disamb page, as they do now. So it will be a small but positive improvement. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2024 (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: [1]. 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)

Requested move 29 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Toothed belt → timing belt – The most common name for this concept is "timing belt" not "toothed belt". The move is currently blocked by a redirect to a pointless disamb page. The move will either make no difference to the reader or will avoid one unnecessary step through the disamb. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing some overlap between this article and Timing belt (camshaft); perhaps a merge would be better? 162 etc. (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Timing belt (camshaft) is indeed a specific application of timing belt, probably the most important one (since practically every car has one). Maybe the two articles should remain separate (like knife and kitchen knife), maybe they should be merged; but in the latter case the merged article would have to be named timing belt, not toothed belt. So the requested move would be a first step towards that merge, if it is worth doing. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the content of the Toothed belt article, it seems to say there are two different reasons that toothed belts are used. One is that they can control the precise alignment of the connected parts and the other is that they can deliver more power than a friction-drive belt. The first purpose might be referred to as timing, but the second is not. Are all toothed belts called timing belts? I have personally only encountered the term "timing belt" in the context of motor vehicle engines. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as per all the past discussion. Putting 'timing' into there is simplistically correct. To answer BarrelProof above, yes it's a fair description to use 'timing belt' here, because the two names 'toothed belt' and 'timing belt' both have enough currency that either one is a valid name. Either is defensible.

However stylistically and editorially this is awful. It encourages confusion with timing belt (camshaft), which needs to stay as a very distinct topic (even though the belts overlap). Also it would prevent simple pipe-trick linking to two distinct pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Engineering and WikiProject Automobiles have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – A timing belt is only one application of a toothed belt - the main image is of a supercharger belt, which is not a timing belt.  Stepho  talk  22:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.