John De Bruin

I've talked with Bill and Renny at Interbike, Grands, etc. Good people. I'm gearing up to do a run of frames here shortly, and I'd maybe give this a shot with the Gates drive on a few frames to see how it goes. I've got a half dozen ideas of what I'd do differently than Yess, but in the end that's a good thing because people can decide if they like the Yess version or the JDB version. Not sure if you'd like to share contact info for Gates in a PM. If so, I'd get in touch with them. Have you looked into the material called Ultem? It's like PC except exotic and expensive. Usually for medical-grade components.Like PC, it comes in solid form so you can CNC some prototypes, and also grains so you can injection-mold it. It is a very stable material to machine on the CNC and a dream to work with. I've never heard of anyone filling it with glass...which means you might be able to try something revolutionary with it for an application such as this. I don't see why you could'nt glass-fill it. It typically is translucent gold color, but you could probably add black color to the injection-mold mix too. For lubricity you could possibly consider a blend of teflon in the mix. I don't know if teflon will blend with PC or Ultem, but it does blend well with acetal (delrin, acetron).

Sounds good. You probably don't need me to tell you that by limiting this technology to two companies, that severely restricts the ability for the technology to take off. I don't know if Gates provided exclusivity to Yess, but that would've been a dumb move on their part if they did. This would need to be licensed industry-wide to become mainstream (assuming the mfr's and consumers embrace it, and I'm not sure that they will). Comments about the 2 quoted items above: IMHO, I caution you not to use the word bulletproof on this. For one, you are overselling it. For two, it's not bulletproof. I've pointed out that the setup requires a higher level of stiffness and precision compared to a traditional chain setup. Without that stiffness and precision, it will not work correctly. Polycarbonate is not a good material for bicycle components. As you may know, PC is referred to as a "notch" plastic. Cutting, machining, sanding, and even normal wear and tear from being used as a sprocket will open the pores of the plastic that will cause degradation and failure. When you injection-mold the part and it is new, you will not have notches (pores), but as the part wears, the material is susceptible to this. I'm assuming you're going to go with a glass-filled PC and possibly add other fillers to increase strength, longevity, lubricity etc. This will help, but still doesn't match the mechanical properties of aluminum at that point. So then you have to ask yourself "what's the point?". The only point worth noting is that you, as a manufacturer, want to make this work because an injection-molded part costs pennies to make, aside from the upfront tooling cost. It isn't about making a better bicycle component...it's about making better profit. I anticipate that you'll disagree, and hope no offense was taken with my opinion. My career expertise is product development with an emphasis in the plastics industry, and I personally would not venture down this path...at least for use within the BMX racing environment. My $.02

I could've chosen better words. When I said generic, I meant more along the lines of "open source". The front gear is historically a component that offers incredibly diverse design possibilities from many brands, and consumers will want to see aesthetic design choices. Although the gear looks fine for 2015/16, in 2017 it's going to look like it's from 1993 in the eyes of the consumer. BMX is a VERY trendy market, and I doubt Gates will have their finger on the pulse of such subtle issues that equate to sales. If the front gear was open source, Gates could still monetize the system with the sale of the belt and rear cog, yet allow the concept to flourish with letting anyone manufacture the front gear. This is not much different than open-source software, where they give you the bulk for free, but monetize the added features you want. You are very knowledgeable on this subject. Are you directly affiliated with Gates...or Yess?

Did Gates manufacture and supply the gear and cog also? Do they have a patent to explicitly prevent other BMX companies from manufacturing the gear and cog? (I've looked at it up close, and technically-speaking there's nothing that would prevent any decent machine shop from making them) If so, that's a bad idea in my opinion. Gears and cogs have historically been generic. If Gates wants to capitalize on the design with the belt that's one thing...but if that includes the gear/cog that's a whole different ball of wax that will hurt more than it helps.

I don't disagree that poor maintenance will cause a chain's efficiency to decrease over time. You could say that about a lot of BMX parts. IMO that the amount is negligible though, and the remedy is to simply buy a new $20 chain. Belt-drive is cool and fun for sure, but the con's still outweigh the pro's. The proof in that will be how many people actually buy it. So i guess we'll see.

A press-fit does not create stacked tolerances. It is, for all practical purposes of discussion on tolerance, a 1-to-1 fit. Arguing that a chain is inferior (or even gets worse over time) is a losing battle. Timing chains on high-horsepower engines seam to work just fine "with all those stacked tolerances". And when you divide 6,000 RPM by the precision required for correct timing to achieve that RPM in the first place...I think you're going to have a hard time pitching the idea that the chain is the root cause of the problem. I like the idea of a belt. It's a dream to ride. But the pro's don't outstack the con's IMHO. If a person is comfortable with the drawbacks and wants the latest thing, it's awesome to see this engineering executed so well. They did a great job. A 1-piece front sprocket is a critical next step though IMO.

There is still slack, based on the inherent condition of stacked tolerances between the fit of the spider, chain ring, and chain ring bolts. Those components have fairly loose tolerances, which makes them easy to fit together regardless of what manufacturer made which part. This creates the impossible situation of having a perfectly true (round) front gear in relation to the crank spindle. This is entirely the reason why traditional chains have a "tight spot" and "loose spot". You might not see it as much with a belt, but it's there. And since the belt system relies on a higher degree of precision to perform correctly, it is entirely relevant that one considers those factors. One way to solve that would be a one-piece sprocket, back-spaced to provide correct chain alignment with today's outboard BB's...which I am unaware of any company making those. And if they did, it would create less flexibility and more effort for a rider to change front gears.

▼

I rode one at the Grands. Very quiet and smooth which is impressive...but quiet and smooth doesn't provide advantage for winning a race. There's a slight weight reduction for the belt v. chain. The cons are stacked: added weight of the stay slot area, added weight of the chain ring, added weight of the cog/hub, the inherent requirement of a virtually zero-flex rear triangle to ensure the belt doesn't come off track (they specifically said that more than 0.010" flex would create a problem), the requirement of having an absolutely perfectly dialed setup 100% of the time for it to function properly, the increased difficulty for this to propagate over to carbon frames because of the stay slot, and of course the simple cost v. benefit ratio.

I have 2 NP mini's, and they have consecutive #'s. 283592 and 28359Ɛ (the 3 is stamped upside-down)

I owned an NOS original blue NP set. I still own an NOS original blue CW set. Both powdered at the same company, Newport Powder Coating (that part according to Billy Griggs). It's a nice bike, but not original finish.

I still have this blue mini frame/chrome fork. If anyone's interested in owning it, hit me up on fb or email. Fair price, and one of the few remaining vintage items I own and just too lazy to list. Probably the earliest NOS CW to exist. It has the round brake bridge, oval TT and pre-serial #. Original blue powder by Newport Powder Coating. Fork probably installed by El Monte as a wall hanger. It's never been built.

Bill wanted a tri-lobe design (which has since been done by other crank mfr's) and Richard wanted the hex. Couple that with a long commute and long working hours, and that was enough. Looks like a quick and dirty design concept rather than an actual prototype. The slice just a way of checking penetration of the braze. I do this occasionally to make sure our weld penetration is being maintained. A next-gen Aerospeed was conceptualized by Richard...at least to the point of a napkin sketch with certain specific parameters. I won't go into details because I may take a poke at that myself someday. It's not an easy concept to do, but then again, neither was the original shape of the Aerospeed with its' 6-sides and tapers in the width and height. The photos here look like off-the-shelf oval tubing, which is pretty simple and boring. Without knowing the credibility of the source or possible embellishment of a now 30-year-old story behind them, calling these "Aerospeed Prototypes" would be a bit of a stretch IMHO.

JMC score with good parts, but check these Harbor Lite bars. I'm not seeing any info out there on these. My guess would be made by Voris Dixon based on the era, quality, and low volume.

You don't have to glue them for a show bike.