just my two cents as an engineering student and shop rat. Without seeing any of the design process for either frames it's hard to judge whether or not they're good products. Gearboxes have been tried, tested and in production for quite a while. This one is simply a black box without calculated gear ratios or materials let alone the actual engineering needed to incorporate that into a frame and make it shift effectively. It is far from even being considered for production. Same with the DF350. Unproven claims and fancy (really good) CAD work. As for the derailleur guide I don't understand how it's supposed to work or be better than whats available? I mean I'd choose a Gamut 2 ring system with a front derailleur. It's proven and simple. Combined a front derailleur with a bottom guide roller and boom works perfect. No moving small moving parts like what would be needed on the Derailleur Guide here plus less clutter. That leaves the footsie and I-beam adapter. One I could see both being marketable. Two they're completed, thought through, and useful designs. The footsie while not necessarily being actually "useful" it's objective is clear and it completes it. Not to mention it doubles as a fender and nut protector regardless of it you ride brakeless or not. Ps with the right material, it wouldn't be more abrasive than a shoe. Finally the I-beam adapter. It's clearly been through the design process and is a (maybe) finished product. I didn't buy an I-beam because the posts aren't the lightest compared to a Woodman, Thompson, or other. While not necessarily the most marketable it is a well designed, real, useful product. As for the competition. Show (/require?) more evidence of a design process not just a finished product. My preconception about the designs shown might be cleared up if I could see the design process.